rejecting the concept of judicial immunity, holding the only immunity available to a witness is under the state’s immunity statute which can be granted by a court only at the prosecution’s request
How later courts described this case
- rejecting the concept of judicial immunity, holding the only immunity available to a witness is under the state’s immunity statute which can be granted by a court only at the prosecution’s request
- "Some courts have found that court granted immunity is an invasion of the normal function of the executive branch to weigh competing public interests in determining whether a particular criminal suspect should be prosecuted."
- certiorari not granted on question of substantial evidence test under C.A.R. 4.1
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NEIGHBORS, Justice,
specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment of the court. However, I write separately to express my concern that the court’s opinion may create more problems than it solves. As I read the majority opinion, the court rejects both the reasoning and the holding of Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir.1980). However, the court implies that, under some circumstances, due process and fundamental fairness may require that a court fashion appropriate remedies, including dismissal of charges, to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. *1359 If dismissal is an appropriate remedy, I fail to see why the lesser available alternative of judicial immunity should not also be available to a trial judge in certain unique circumstances.
In my view, we need not reach the validity of Smith in this case. The majority concedes that at least two prongs of the Smith test are not met: The proffered testimony did not clearly exculpate the defendant and it was not essential- to the defense. The preferable resolution of the Smith issue in this case is simply to affirm the court of appeals’ decision upholding the trial court’s ruling and hold that a grant of immunity by the court at the request of a defendant to a witness is inappropriate where that witness is a potential target of prosecution for the crime with which the defendant stands charged. People v. Guyton, 44 Colo.App. 548 , 620 P.2d 50 (1980).
Accordingly, I would leave consideration of the Smith issue and the formulation of appropriate remedies for due process violations for another day.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice QUINN joins me in this special concurrence.