Certain language from former federal statute. Language in section beginning with "but no such witness may be prosecuted" is almost a verbatim copy of the former federal immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2514. Wheeler v. District Court, 184 Colo. 193, 519 P.2d 327 (1974).

Grand jury witness's right to suppress intercepted communications. A grant jury witness has a statutory right to seek the suppression of intercepted communications as well as evidence derived therefrom, and this right is not impaired by the court's grant of transactional immunity since, while such immunity adequately safeguards the witness's privilege against self-incrimination, it does not protect the witness's privacy interest in the contents of the intercepted communications. In re P.R. v. District Court, 637 P.2d 346 (Colo. 1981).

Immunized grand jury testimony cannot be used in an affidavit supporting a search warrant against the person giving the immunized testimony. Such use falls directly within the provision protecting the defendant from penalty on account of the testimony given. People v. Henson, 705 P.2d 996 (Colo. App. 1985).

Extent of immunity. When the extent of a grant of immunity is ambiguous and the actions or degree of participation covered by the grant of immunity are not ascertainable, the grant of immunity must extend to the defendant's participation in the entire transaction. People v. Romero, 712 P.2d 1081 (Colo. App. 1985), rev'd, 745 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 108 U.S. 1759, 108 S. Ct. 1296, 99 L.Ed.2d 506 (1988).

Loss of immunity. When a defendant has acted with reasonable and detrimental reliance on a governmental promise involving a grant of immunity, the government must be stopped from going back on its promise. People v. Romero, 712 P.2d 1081 (Colo. App. 1985), rev'd, 745 P.2d 1003 (Colo. 1987), cert. denied, 108 U.S. 1759, 108 S. Ct. 1296, 99 L.Ed.2d 506 (1988).

Once a criminal defendant demonstrates that he has been compelled to testify under a grant of use immunity, the prosecution is prohibited from using the compelled testimony in any respect and the prosecution has the duty to prove that evidence it proposes to use is derived from an independent source. People v. Reali, 895 P.2d 161 (Colo. App. 1994).

Where prosecutors were exposed to defendant's immunized testimony but defendant had previously made a detailed statement concerning her part in the crime and defendant's counsel provided additional information to the prosecutors that was not referred to in the detailed statement, possible prosecutorial use of information from the immunized testimony was not a structural defect in the trial and a harmless error analysis was appropriate. In conducting such analysis court was entitled to consider the fact that defendant's participation in the crime was not seriously contested at trial. People v. Reali, 895 P.2d 161 (Colo. App. 1994); People v. Reali, 950 P.2d 645 (Colo. App. 1997).

Mere fact that witness observed the defendant at a hearing in which the defendant gave immunized testimony does not constitute a use of that testimony. Defendant could have been compelled to appear before the witness and to speak even in the absence of the grant of immunity since the right against self-incrimination does not extend to non-testimonial actions. People v. Reali, 895 P.2d 161 (Colo. App. 1994).

Refusal to testify after receiving immunity deemed contempt. A witness who, despite receiving immunity, persists before a trial court judge in refusing on fifth amendment grounds to supply grand jury testimony, commits contempt and may be punished summarily. People v. Lucero, 196 Colo. 276, 584 P.2d 1208 (1978).

A witness who refused to testify after being granted immunity was guilty of contempt. People v. Mulberry, 919 P.2d 835 (Colo. App. 1995).

Immunity granted a defendant under this section was universal and therefore all jurisdictions were precluded from using defendant's testimony in subsequent prosecution against him. People v. Mulberry, 919 P.2d 835 (Colo. App. 1995).

Applied in Westerberg v. District Court, 181 Colo. 10, 506 P.2d 746 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1162, 94 S. Ct. 925, 39 L.Ed.2d 115 (1974); People v. Marquez, 644 P.2d 59 (Colo. App. 1981).