For example, suppose the prosecution grants Witness the use immunity for testifying in Defendant's robbery trial.
Note, however, that while this kind of immunity is much broader than the use or derivative use immunity, it does not prevent the prosecution of the witness for criminal activities that are unrelated to the subject matter of his testimony.
Most Federal and State courts agree that use immunity is constitutionally sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Garrity.
Public employers should keep in mind that use immunity in the compelled interview situation is automatic.
Because use immunity is automatic when statements are compelled, employers do not further jeopardize subsequent prosecution by expressly proffering immunity.
Failure to limit the interview to specific incidents could result in employees obtaining use immunity for statements pertaining to a variety of crimes not contemplated by the employer but mentioned during the interview.
Furthermore, because there are some legitimate uses for compelled statements, employers should be careful not to exaggerate the extent of use immunity when advising employees of their rights.