Opinion ID: 1058852
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Grant of Immunity to Keon Murray

Text: Juniper argues the trial court erred in allowing the Commonwealth to grant immunity to witness Keon Murray with no notice, contrary to the law, and due process rights of [Juniper]. Keon Murray testified for the Commonwealth. At the beginning of his testimony, he agreed that no promises [had] been made to [him] by the Commonwealth in exchange for [his testimony]. Murray testified that he was close to Juniper and his family and knew Keshia. When questioned about the events on the day of the murders, Murray answered, Your Honor, I plead the Fifth. The trial court called a recess and outside of the presence of the jury, the Commonwealth stated its intention to offer Murray immunity. [10] Defense counsel stated his objection as follows: I object to the procedure ... on behalf of defendant, Mr. Juniper. . . . . . The question is whether or not this procedure denies the defendant due process of the law. . . . . . [T]hreatening [Murray] about his testimony is a denial of due process to Mr. Juniper. That's the best argument I can make. On appeal, Juniper argues the grant of immunity was an abuse of discretion because it prevented effective cross-examination of Murray in violation of Juniper's due process rights under the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, Juniper contends that since the grant of immunity was contemporaneous with the witness's testimony, the defense lacked [t]he pre-trial preparation and reflection required to allow a full and fair examination of Murray. In response, the Commonwealth essentially argues that Juniper has waived this due process argument because he failed to assert a violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause in the trial court. We agree with the Commonwealth because the record reflects Juniper never argued to the trial court the Confrontation Clause claims he now makes on appeal as the basis of his due process argument. As he acknowledges on appeal, Juniper's argument that the trial court's decision undermined his ability to cross-examine Murray, is actually a claim under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. As such, a general assertion of a due process violation in the trial court is insufficient to preserve this argument for appeal. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 273, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994). Therefore, Juniper has waived this assignment of error under Rule 5:25.