Opinion ID: 891596
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Clogging the Courts

Text: {55} In its briefing before this Court, as well as its argument to the district court, the State justified its refusal to grant immunity, in part, on fears that granting immunity would open the floodgate to defense witnesses demanding immunity for their testimony. As a result of today's opinion, district courts may see an increase in requests for defense witness immunity, but a desire for efficiency is no reason to withhold testimony which could provide essential constitutional protection to defendants. A desire for judicial expediency provides no excuse to short-change a defendant in his quest for constitutional protection. See United States v. McIver, 688 F.2d 726, 731 (11th Cir.1982) (noting the futility of attempting to substitute efficiency for constitutional requirements of due process). Furthermore, we have long noted that district courts have supervisory control over the proceedings before them, and are fully capable of quickly dispatching meritless arguments. See Pizza Hut of Santa Fe, Inc. v. Branch, 89 N.M. 325, 327, 552 P.2d 227, 229 (Ct.App.1976) ([W]e have held that trial courts have supervisory control over their dockets and inherent power to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.). With these well-established principles, courts will be able to prevent needless and time-consuming mini-trials over the issue of witness immunity.