Opinion ID: 3030011
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Selective Immunization of Witnesses

Text: [5] There is no evidence to support Allen’s claim that the prosecutor selectively granted immunity. Allen argues the ALLEN v. WOODFORD 969 prosecutor had no good reason to deny immunity to Billy Ray Hamilton, whose conviction and death sentence were on appeal at the time, or to Connie Barbo. Allen has not demonstrated that the prosecutor intentionally distorted the judicial fact-finding process by denying immunity to a potential witness whose testimony would have been relevant to the defense. Lord, 711 F.2d at 890-91. Allen presented no evidence that the prosecutor’s denial of immunity to Barbo or Hamilton was motivated by a desire to distort the fact-finding process. Moreover, Allen fails to show how either Barbo’s or Hamilton’s testimony would have exculpated him.