THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
EARNELL RICHARDS AND EARSLEY WILCHER, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The State of Florida sought a writ of certiorari to compel two witnesses who had been granted use immunity to testify at trial. The trial court had refused to compel their testimony unless the State granted additional immunity from perjury prosecution. The court held that use immunity is all the law requires, and the witnesses must testify; they may still be prosecuted for perjury if their testimony is contradicted by independent evidence.
Witnesses granted use immunity must be compelled to testify. Use immunity—protection from use of trial testimony as evidence in prosecution—is all the protection the law requires. Witnesses remain subject to perjury prosecution for trial testimony if proved perjurious by independent evidence, and remain subject to prosecution for prior perjured statements if proved by means other than their immunized trial testimony.
[1] A trial court cannot condition the compulsion of testimony under use immunity on the State granting immunity from prosecution for perjury as to all prior statements.
[2] Use immunity granted pursuant to statute requires protection from the use of trial testimony against the witness, but does not entitle the witness to immunity from prosec…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Protection from the use of their trial testimony is all the protection that the law requires”
Establishes the scope of use immunity and rejects the trial court's demand for broader immunity protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRichards and Wilcher had been granted use immunity pursuant to Florida Statute Section 914.04. The trial court refused to compel them to testify at th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
PER CURIAM.
By this petition for writ of certiorari, the State seeks review of a trial court order refusing to compel Richards and Wilcher, persons who indisputably had been given use immunity pursuant to Section 914.04, Florida Statutes (1983), to testify at the trial of Wilcher’s brother. The announced basis for the trial court’s ruling was that it would not compel the witnesses to testify at trial unless the State granted the witnesses immunity from “prosecution for perjury as to all prior statements, including statements to the police and to the Grand Jury and as to use of testimony at trial to prove contradiction with prior sworn statements.” (emphasis supplied). Protection from the use of their trial testimony is all the protection that the law requires, see Novo v. Scott, 438 So. 2d 477 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984), and such protection having been given, the respondents’ testimony must be compelled. While any testimony which, these witnesses give at trial under the grant of immunity may not be used as evidence against them in a prosecution for perjury by making inconsistent or contradictory statements, these witnesses are not entitled to immunity from prosecution. They may be prosecuted for committing perjury during their trial testimony providing only that their trial testimony is proved to be perjurious by independent proof rather than by merely showing that it conflicts with prior testimony, and they may be prosecuted for perjury for making any previous sworn statement so long as the statement is proved perjurious by other than the use of the witnesses’ immunized trial testimony. See The Florida Bar v. Doe, 384 So. 2d 30 (Fla.1980); Menut v. State, 446 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Certiorari granted; order of July 11, 1984, quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Belidor, 96 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…nvocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege as opposed to a question by question response. .Any prior statement that hypothetically may have been untruthful is not protected now and is unaffected by the statutory immunity granted. State v. Richards, 457 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Novo v. The Honorable Thomas E. Scott, 438 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- THE Florida BAR v. DOE, 384 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1980)
- Bogun v. Snyder, 446 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Menut v. State, 446 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)