connected offense which he in good faith discloses as part of the one to which he was admitted as a witness, though it constitutes a separate crime.2 26 The contract is a continuous one, and the person with whom it is made acquires no rights under it until the case against the party or parties accused against whom he agreed to testify is finally disposed of.27 It gives him no right to bail in a case in which bail would not otherwise be granted.28 A mere equitable right to a pardon does not do away with the constitutional privilege of an accomplice to refuse to give evidence against himself, if he chooses to claim it.29 But where the agreement by the state has the effect of granting to the witness absolute immunity from prosecution, he cannot claim the constitutional privilege of silence, but may be compelled to testify, and punished for contempt if he refuses to do so.80

To entitle the witness to immunity he must make a full disclosure of all matters within his knowledge in favor of the prosecution, and if he does not do so,31 or if he refuses to testify,32 or in case he testifies

26 Heinzman v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 76, 29 S. W. 156, 482.

Immunity granted for testifying in respect to a murder protects the witness from prosecution as an accessory or accomplice to that crime. Ex parte Muncy, 72 Tex. Cr. 541, 163 S. W. 29. 27 Ex parte Carter, 62 Tex. Cr. 113, 136 S. W. 778; Ex parte Greenhaw, 41 Tex. Cr. 278, 53 S. W. 1024.

28 Ex parte Carter, 62 Tex. Cr. 113, 136 S. W. 778; Ex parte Greenhaw, 41 Tex. Cr. 278, 53 S. W. 1024.

The prosecuting attorney has no right to agree that he shall be admitted to bail. Ex parte Greenhaw, 41 Tex. Cr. 278, 53 S. W. 1024.

29 Ex parte Irvine, 74 Fed. 954. 30 Ex parte Muncy, 72 Tex. Cr. 541, 163 S. W. 29.

31 United States v. Ford, 99 U. S. 594, 25 L. Ed. 399; Alderman v. People, 4 Mich. 414, 69 Am. Dec. 321; Scribner v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 465, 132 Pac. 933, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 381; Neeley v. State, 27 Tex. App. 324, 11 S. W. 376.

He "must disclose what he knows,

and withhold nothing because of its tendency to self-crimination."' State v. Lyon, 81 N. C. 600, 31 Am. Rep. 518.

He may be cross-examined by the defendant as to statements made by him to his attorney in respect to the crime. The rule making such statements privileged does not apply under such circumstances, since its purpose is to prevent a party from being required to incriminate himself, which the witness has agreed to do. State v. Condry, 50 N. C. 418.

32 United States. United States v.
Hinz, 35 Fed. 272. And see United
States v. Ford, 99 U. S. 594, 25 L.
Ed. 399.

Massachusetts. Com. v. Knapp, 10
Pick. 477, 20 Am. Dec. 534.
North Carolina.

69 N. C. 529.

State v. Moody,

falsely, he forfeits his right to immunity or clemency, and may be convicted. It is sufficient, however, if he testifies to such facts as are within his knowledge, and refuses no material and admissible information which he possesses, whether the evidence be favorable or adverse to the state.84 The fact that the person against whom he testifies is acquitted does not affect his right to clemency.85

§ 212. Statutory immunity of persons giving self-incriminating testimony-In general. Congress has enacted numerous statutes granting immunity from prosecution to persons who give self-incriminating evidence in various actions and proceedings, and there are similar statutes in many of the states.36 For example, immunity is granted by the federal statutes to persons testifying or producing evidence before the interstate commerce commission or in causes or proceedings based upon or growing out of violations of the interstate commerce laws,37 or in proceedings, suits or prosecutions under the federal anti-trust acts,38 or which are instituted under the customs

158 S. W. 274; Nicks v. State, 40 Tex. Cr. 1, 48 S. W. 186.

33 United States v. Hinz, 35 Fed. 272; Scribner v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 465, 132 Pac. 933, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 381; Cox v. State (Tex. Cr.), 69 S. W. 145; Heinzman v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. 76, 29 S. W. 156, 482. And see United States v. Ford, 99 U. S. 594, 25 L. Ed. 399.

As where, in response to a question asked for the purpose of showing his motive in testifying against his co-defendant, he falsely states that he has not been promised immunity, though in such case his false testimony is to the advantage of the state. Tullis v. State, 41 Tex. Cr. 87, 52 S. W. 83.

34 It is the introduction and examination of the witness upon the incriminating facts of the corpus delicti that form the basis of his claim, and not the character and effect of the testimony delivered." State v. Lyon, 81 N. C. 600, 31 Am. Rep. 518.

35 United States v. Lee, 4 McLean (U. S.) 103, 26 Fed. Cas. No. 15,588;

Lowe v. State, 111 Md. 1, 73 Atl. 637, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439, 18 Ann. Cas. 744.

36 See the statutes and the cases cited in the following notes.

37 Act. Feb. 25, 1903, C. 755, 32 Stat. 854, 907; Act Feb. 19, 1903, C. 708, § 3, 32 Stat. 848; Act Feb. 11, 1893, C. 83, 27 Stat. 443. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 48 L. Ed. 860, 24 Sup. Ct. 563; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 40 L. Ed. 819, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, aff'g 70 Fed. 46; United States v. Skinner, 218 Fed. 870; United States v. Swift, 186 Fed. 1002. And see Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 57 L. Ed. 450, 33 Sup. Ct. 226, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 128, aff'g 192 Fed. 83, which aff'd 175 Fed. 852; s. c., 217 U. S. 423, 54 L. Ed. 821, 30 Sup. Ct. 539; Burrell v. Montana, 194 U. S. 572, 48 L. Ed. 1122, 24 Sup. Ct. 787, aff'g 27 Mont. 282, 70 Pac. 982.

38 Act. Feb. 25, 1903, C. 755, 32 Stat. 854, 907. Heike V. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 57 L. Ed. 450, 33 Sup. Ct. 226, Ann. Cas. 1914 C

acts,39 or in investigations by the corporations bureau of the department of commerce and labor,40 or by the federal trade commission.41 Similar provisions are also often found in state anti-trust laws,42 acts for the punishment of persons violating the election laws,48 or the laws against gambling, or the liquor laws, and in acts defining and punishing conspiracies,46 or bribery.47 Immunity is also sometimes

granted to persons testifying in actions on the bond of a public officer or to recover money received by or deposited with such an officer, or in actions or proceedings involving the official conduct of such an officer,48 or to persons testifying touching the commission of any misdemeanor.49 And in some jurisdictions there are constitutional provisions granting immunity to any person testifying or producing evidence, when legally called upon to do so, as to facts tending to establish the guilt of any other person or corporation, charged with an offense against the laws of the state.5

50

It has been held that such a statute applies to a proceeding commenced after its enactment although the crime was committed before,51 and where the statute is in force when the testimony is given, its repeal before such testimony is used will not deprive the witness of his immunity.52

The purpose of such statutes is to make available and compulsory evidence that could not otherwise be obtained.53 They are virtually acts of general amnesty,54 and, it has been said, give the witness the

spect to bribery. People v. Goldberg, 287 Ill. 238, 122 N. E. 530, rev'g 210 Ill. App. 422; People v. Argo, 237 Ill. 173, 86 N. E. 679.

48 Rudolph v. State, 128 Wis. 222, 107 N. W. 466, 116 Am. St. Rep. 32; State v. Murphy, 128 Wis. 201, 107 N. W. 470.

49 State v. Pence, 173 Ind. 99, 89 N. E. 488, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 818, 140 Am. St. Rep. 240, 21 Ann. Cas. 1180; Bedgood v. State, 115 Ind. 275, 17 N. E. 621.

50 Before any person can secure immunity under the provision of the Oklahoma Constitution, he must have testified under an agreement with the prosecuting attorney approved by the court, or he must have been compelled by the court to testify after claiming the privilege of silence. Scribner v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 465, 132 Pac. 933, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 381.

Introducing in evidence against the defendant a deed which he has been compelled by the court to produce in the proceeding against him does not entitle him to immunity under this

provision. Temple v. State, 15 Okla. Cr. 146, 175 Pac. 555.

51 People v. Court of General Sessions in and for New York County, 96 N. Y. App. Div. 201, 89 N. Y. Supp. 364, aff'd 179 N. Y. 594, 72 N. E. 1148.

52 Cameron v. United States, 231 U. S. 710, 58 L. Ed. 448, Sup. Ct., rev'g judgment 192 Fed. 548.

53 Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 57 L. Ed. 450, 33 Sup. Ct. 226, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 128, aff'g 192 Fed. 83, which aff'd 175 Fed. 852; United States v. Skinner, 218 Fed. 870; Bradley v. Clark, 133 Cal. 196, 65 Pac. 395; Scribner v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 465, 132 Pac. 933, Ann. Cas. 1915 B 381; Griffin v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 428, 66 S. W. 782.

54 Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 40 L. Ed. 819, 16 Sup. Ct. 644; United States v. Swift, 186 Fed. 1002; in re Rouss, 221 N. Y. 81, 116 N. E. 782, aff'g 169 App. Div. 629, 155 N. Y. Supp. 557; In re Briggs, 135 N. C. 118, 47 S. E. 403. Compare People v. Lane, 132 N. Y. App. Div. 406, 116 N. Y.

same protection as if he had received a pardon.55 But they do not offer a gratuity to crime,56 nor license to commit it.57

It has been held that it is not legally possible for persons to testify with respect to matters covered by the statutes without thereby becoming immune from prosecution and punishment with respect to them, even though they stipulate that they shall not be immune.58

§ 213. Extent of immunity-Offenses and prosecution to which immunity extends. Some of the statutes limit the immunity to crimes connected with or growing out of the act on which the prosecution or investigation in which the evidence was given is based,59 or to the identical offense in respect to which the witness testified.60 But a statute granting a witness immunity "for the offense with reference to which his testimony was given," has been held to include not only the offense with which the defendant in the proceeding where the evidence was given was charged and in which the witness participated, but also any other offense with which the witness may be charged, and to which such evidence may have reference or which it may tend to establish.61 A statute granting immunity from criminal prosecution will be held to grant immunity from imprisonment and from fine, forfeiture and penalty, whether to be recovered in a civil or criminal proceeding.62 The immunity extends to con

Supp. 990, aff'd 196 N. Y. 520, 89 N.
E. 1108.

55 In re Rouss, 221 N. Y. 81, 116 N. E. 782, aff'g 169 App. Div. 629, 155 N. Y. Supp. 557.

56 Heike v. United States, 227 U. S. 131, 57 L. Ed. 450, 33 Sup. Ct. 226, Ann. Cas. 1914 C 128, aff'g 192 Fed. 83, which aff'd 175 Fed. 852; United States v. Skinner, 218 Fed. 870.

57 United States v. Swift, 186 Fed. 1002. And see § 213, infra.

58 In re Grand Jury, 135 N. Y. Supp. 103.

59 That evidence is elicited before a grand jury in an investigation of a charge against a third person tending to show that the witness has previously violated an injunction does not render him immune from prosecution for contempt for such violation under a statute providing that the witness

shall not be prosecuted for any crime
connected with or growing out of the
act on which the prosecution in which
his evidence is used is based. Doyle
v. Willcockson, 184 Iowa 757, 169
N. W. 241.

60 Owens v. State, 2 Head (Tenn.)
455.

61 Ex parte Cohen, 104 Cal. 524, 38 Pac. 364, 26 L. R. A. 423, 43 Am. St. Rep. 127.

62 An affidavit made by a person accused of crime for the purpose of procuring an order for the summoning of witnesses at the expense of the government is not a pleading of a party nor discovery or evidence obtained from a party or witness by means of a judicial proceeding, within the meaning of Rev. St. § 860, and statements therein may be used to contradict his statements as a wit