(a) In any investigation or proceeding for any offense, if a person refuses to answer a question or produce evidence of any other kind on the ground that he may be incriminated thereby, the prosecuting attorney may, in writing, request the Superior Court to order that person to answer the question or produce the evidence. The court shall set a time for hearing and order the person to appear before the court and show cause, if any, why the question should not be answered or the evidence produced, and the court shall order the question answered or the evidence produced unless it finds that to do so would be clearly contrary to the public interest, or could subject the witness to a criminal prosecution in another jurisdiction. (b) After complying, and if, but for this Section, the person would have been privileged to withhold the answer given or the evidence produced by him, no testimony or evidence provided under compulsion of the court order (or any information derived directly or indirectly therefrom) may be used against such witness in any criminal proceeding other that one for perjury. (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), the person may be prosecuted or subjected to penalty or forfeiture for any perjury, false swearing or contempt committed in answering, or failing to answer, or in producing, or failing to produce, evidence in accordance with the order. SOURCE: Repealed and reenacted by P.L. 15-094:5 (Jan. 17, 1980). COMMENT: Section 1.21 is new; however, it is substantively similar to California Penal Code § 1324. The procedure is a useful one and its substance appears in the laws of most states. The California provision is believed to be based on the Model Witness Immunity Act. See discussion in California Joint Legislative Committee for Revision of the Penal Code, Penal Code Revision Project 103-108 (Tent. Draft 2, 1968). Cal. 505. The amendment made by P.L. 15-094, § 5 changed the type of immunity granted from that practiced in California to that permitted by the Supreme Court, namely “use immunity”. The difference is that, under the former section of the Code, a witness given immunity could not be prosecuted for the event or transaction upon which his testimony was based no matter whether the prosecutor developed independent evidence or not. Under “use immunity” the witness may be prosecuted for the events of about which he testifies if the prosecutor develops sufficient independent evidence of the event and the witnesses culpability wholly apart from his testimony of the events.
COL08222024
COURT DECISIONS: SUPERIOR COURT 1981. Immunity under this Section may not be given a witness whose testimony is sought for a civil proceeding even where the witness has claimed his right to silence under the 5th Amendment. § 1.21 of Title 8 (this Section) permits the prosecuting attorney to seek immunity “in any investigation or proceeding for any offense, ...”. The proceeding before the Department of Administration to decertify the Guam Federation of Teachers and the Local 3 union did not constitute a proceeding for any offense. In re testimony of Tomas Long, Sup. Ct. 1981, Special Proceedings #27-81.