when immunity is offered in exchange for testimony, how is that not paid testimony and thus ignored?
<p>It seems to me that when someone is offered immunity to testify against their friend-in-crime, they could simply discredit themselves with something along the lines of:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>were you paid for your testimony?</p>
<p>yes, they offered me freedom</p>
<p>would you have testified the same regardless of guilt?</p>
<p>yes</p>
<p>then how can we believe anything you said?</p>
<p>you can't</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe I am missing something, but it seems pretty broken to me...</p>

<p>This is one of the things that the Prosecution is required to inform the defense of under <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure#Examples" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brady Disclosure</a> and the Defense may raise issue with the testimony being less than reliable in part because the witness is benefiting from a quid pro quo for testimonial evidence.   Brady Disclosure gets its name from the landmark SCOTUS case <em>Brady v. Maryland</em> which ruled that it is a due process violation for the prosecution not to turn over all evidence collected INCLUDING exculpatory evidence (i.e. evidence that helps show the defendant's innocence as opposed to inculpatory evidence, which shows the defendant's guilt.).</p>
<p>This is also to the Prosecution's interest because the prosecutor is not interested in convicting people but by discovering the truth as to what happened.  And because a conviction should only happen when the truth is so compelling that it is beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution's evidence is scrutinized much more rigorously than the defendant's.  After all, if an innocent person is found legally guilty of a crime, all that does is let the guilty party walk free... and the public will be unwilling to look for who really did it because it's convinced they got the right man.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>when immunity is offered in exchange for testimony, how is that not paid testimony and thus ignored?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It's a matter of prosecutorial efficiency, provided that the testimony at issue is truthful.</p>
<p>Immunity agreements with key witnesses contribute to a more efficient allocation of the limited resources the prosecutor has for prosecuting criminal activity. See <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/19861078789f2d28911035" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Plaster v. U.S.</em>, 789 F.2d 289, 293 (1986)</a> (&quot;<em>The government alone makes a decision not to prosecute in exchange for testimony which will, hopefully, lead to a greater number of indictments or convictions</em>&quot;). See also <a href="https://www.leagle.com/decision/inlaco20210401181" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>State v. Avila</em>, 320 So.3d 456, 460 (2021)</a> (&quot;<em>[immunity] agreements are not only constitutionally-permissible, but have also been heralded as essential to the proper functioning of our justice system</em>&quot;, citing cases).</p>
<p>The dialogue you sketch mischaracterizes how testimony would develop. No reasonable witness would admit his testimony is independent of the defendant's actual guilt. That approach by the witness would nullify the immunity agreement because the purpose of testimony is to disclose the truth, and the witness's blatant admission hinders the jury's task of assessing credibility.</p>

hypothetical judicial-immunity