Question for DU's lawyer contingent

[jmowreader]

Does immunized testimony protect against perjury?

No For Instances here. If the Senate brought either of Trump's sons in on a subpoena and immunized their testimony to compel same, then started asking very pointed questions about Donald, Ivanka and Jared, and they perjured themselves to protect the family, what effect would it have on them?

[Eliot Rosewater]

1. Look at the questions we have to ask, the pretzeling

of logic we have to deal with given our president and his party are all criminals.

Big criminals, end the human race criminals.

His whole party, now. If you are still a republican, you support treason and the end of America.

[Shrike47]

2. No. Immunity grants are premised on truthful testimony.

If you perjure yourself, you get no immunity and are open to perjury charges, too.

[PoliticAverse]

3. 18 U.S. Code 6002 - Immunity generally...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/6002

Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this title, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title II, § 201(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 927; amended Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330013(4), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2146.)

[Caliman73]

4. Sorry, I am not a lawyer

I did find this however:

1758. Perjury Cases -- Special Problems And Defenses -- Immunity

A grant of immunity does not protect a person from a perjury charge if he or she testifies falsely. United States v. Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. 115, 126 (1980); United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 178 (1977). The immunity grant means that immunized testimony cannot be used to prove that a previous sworn statement was false. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972). 18 U.S.C. § 6002. Thus, if two sworn statements are irreconcilable and one was made after an immunity grant, the government must prove that the one given under the immunity grant was the false one. The government may prove immunized testimony is false by using other immunized testimony from the same grant of immunity "so long as that testimony conforms to otherwise applicable rules of evidence." Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 131.

[cited in USAM 9-69.200]

Here is the link: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1758-perjury-cases-special-problems-and-defenses-immunity

It would appear that immunity does not protect against perjury though there seemed to be legaleeze that qualifies it.

[Gothmog]

5. No, the grant of immunity does not protect against perjury

Any grant of immunity is still subject to the laws on perjury. To put it a different way, the testimony cannot be used against an immunized witness so long as the witness tells the truth

[geek tragedy]

6. they'd be open to perjury charges, but it would compromise future prosecutions

of them, even if those prosecutions didn't rely upon that testimony. See, e.g., Oliver North.