Russell v. State
851 P.2d 1274
Wyo.
1993
Check Treatment

*1 majority’s proce- ture. The result I would affirm the the decision of State, by court. claiming the dure would be that ease, present every

forfeiture evi- if

dence otherwise inadmissible defendant granted immunity. require-

had been Such appropriate.

ment It results upon majority analogy a Denno relies application

which has to this case. no 368, Denno, 378 U.S. S.Ct. Jackson RUSSELL, III, Hap Alvin G. a.k.a. 1774, involved volun- Russell, (Defendant), Appellant Thus, if of a tariness confession. de- that his confession fendant claimed involuntary, pretrial the court must hold a (Plaintiff). Wyoming, Appellee STATE of Denno, hearing. 378 U.S. at

Denno No. 90-225. at If the S.Ct. 1788-89. confession is Supreme Wyoming. Court of involuntary, suppressed. it is And even Denno, under cannot then utilize State 5,May confession at trial and ask that the ruling suppress find that judge’s Denno,

was incorrect. 378 U.S. at procedure majority’s

S.Ct. at 1790. The just

allows the State to do that where im-

munity majority’s is claimed. Under the

opinion proceed the State can still to trial charge, argument under the of for-

feiture, though even has ruled

that the defendant had transactional

nity.

On the issue of whether

conspiracy aiding would cover the and abet-

ting charge, the district court ruled:

IT IS THE FURTHER ORDER OF

THE COURT there that is no to Defendant Todd Hall of Wyoming of aiding issue abetting the crime of first degree

murder. affirm this decision of the district

court.

I, therefore, portion dissent to the

opinion requires a Denno-type hearing

in every case and which allows the State to

raise the forfeiture issue at trial even after

the trial court has decided issue

against pretrial the State in a hearing. portion

concur in the opinion which

requires pretrial evidentiary hearing on

the forfeiture where evidence the im-

munity claim charge would be excluded at

trial if immunity existed. *2 Shoumaker, Sheridan, ap- K.

Michael pellant. Gen., Sylvia Atty. Lee

Joseph Meyer, B. Gen., Boy- Hackl, L. Deputy Atty. Barbara er, Pauling, Attys. Asst. Sr. and D. Michael (research Bryan by: Judge assistance A. 6. Ranck Gen. Should have assumed Bellas, Russell’s and Eric R. Prosecution (cid:127)that waiver of his Fifth Amend- Skoric As- rights voluntary? ment Program, University of Wyoming, sistance College Law), appellee. Appellant’s Should conviction be *3 prear- due reversed to unconstitutional THOMAS, MACY, C.J., and Before delay? rest JJ., GOLDEN, CARDINE and testimony 8. Did the of Harold James URBIGKIT, (Retired). J. Taylor Appel- violate Rule 804 and the right lant’s to confrontation? THOMAS, Justice. prosecutor 9. Was it misconduct for the The most difficult issue in this represent to both the state and federal was, grant a of immunity whether or was governments? not, Russell, (Hap) extended to Alvin G. III prosecutorial 10. Was it misconduct to (Russell). equally Almost troublesome is misrepresent immunity agreements? the process jury by selection disclosed prosecutorial 11. itWas misconduct to record, particularly relating to exami- agreements prose- prior violate of a jurors potential nation of for bias. As dis- cutor? by closed the numerous issues raised in prosecutorial 12. Was it misconduct to brief, below, quoted Russell’s number of guilt state a belief in the defendant’s questions are asserted that can be summa- during voir dire? pre-arrest delay; as rized of violation prosecutorial 13. itWas misconduct to confrontation; right constitutional pros- opinion concerning elicit an the defen- misconduct; ecutorial ineffective assistance guilt investigating dant’s from offi- counsel; and error in the admission of cer? evidence. We hold the of immunity issue Jorgenson 14. Was Sanford ineffective procedural correctly was not addressed in a to failing adequately counsel assure context. The case must be reversed and granted that Russell complete remanded for pre-trial hearing on the nity testifying? before question immunity new for a trial if 15. Was Bullen by Hershel ineffective the result hearing should be that allowing testify Hopkin- Russell to at the granted Russell was not immunity. We son trial without counsel? find no reversible error with to Yengich 16. Was Ron ineffective coun- of the other claims of by error asserted change sel his failure to move for a Russell. venue? Appellant, In his Brief of Russell sets Yengich 17. Was Ron ineffective his following forth the issues: to failure call witnesses the issue of 1. Wyoming prosecutor immunity? Does a have the power grant immunity pur- witness 18. Yengich Was Ron ineffective his to Wyoming suant Constitution and object testimony failure Statutes? Hopkinson’s court records of conviction? Wyoming prosecutor 2. Does a Yengich have the 19. Was Ron ineffective for power immunity pur- witness to investigate significant failure and call suant to common law? defense witnesses?

3. granted Judge Was Alvin Russell immunity 20. Did Hamm force the defense exchange in 1979 in to use testimony? peremptory challenges to remove clearly biased [jurors]? witnesses prosecutor If the authority lacked grant immunity, Judge is it 21. Did misconduct to Hamm allow irrelevant offer prejudicial hearsay as an inducement for as Russell’s “background” testimony? Wyo- in violation of the ming Rules of Evidence? 5. Was right Russell’s waiver of his voluntary remain silent in- The of Wyoming, appellee, articu- prosecutors? ducement way: lates the issues in court, preliminary mo- he filed numerous given I. What effect should Ap- agreements seeking a motion alleged immunity tions. Those included ground pellant? charges on the dismissal prose- delay granted had from investigative he been legitimate II. Was surrounding prosecution harmless? cution for his involvement Appellant’s The district court denied all Green’s death. of Harold the statements III. Were motions, holding any without of Russell’s Taylor properly admitted? James question of im- evidentiary ease free from Appellant’s IV. Was go the trial to for- munity, and allowed misconduct? prosecutorial trial commenced on June ward. Russell’s attorneys ef- Appellant’s Did various V. 19, 1990, and, on June fectively represent him? *4 finding guilty him returned a verdict of Appellant with provide Did voir dire VI. aiding abetting first-degree murder and impartial jury? a fair and guilty conspiracy to commit first- and of at properly Was it unfair to admit VI. appeals the degree murder. Russell from Appellant’s background information trial sentence, pursuant to which judgment and relating Hopkinson? to Mark imprisonment sentenced to life he was 30, 1987, Wyo the of On March State abetting first-degree murder aiding and charging

ming complaint filed a criminal of not than and a consecutive term less abetting first-de aiding Russell with and ten, conspir- eight, years more than nor gree conspiring murder and to commit first-degree acy commit murder. charges relat first-degree murder. These Green, of Jeff ed to the torture and murder The six issues asserted Rus first State, Hopkinson in v. 632 P.2d described granted im focus on whether he was sell 922, denied, (Wyo.1981), 79 455 U.S. cert. prosecution propriety the munity from and 1280, 102 S.Ct. The grant immunity. We have of such of complaint traced certain of Russell’s activi recently prosecuting attorney, held that mid-April, just ties from 1979 to after in solely by virtue of his office and the May murder in of 1979. It out Green’s authorization, has any statutory of absence telephone lined numerous conversations grant immunity to a witness. power no personal and and one visit between Russell State, (Wyo.1993).1 851 P.2d 1262 Hall v. Hopkinson, Hopkinson while was incarcer Hall, however, that We went on to hold Insti Lompoc ated at Federal Corrections authority extend immuni the of absence tute; exchanges money; meetings of be attorney part prosecuting the ty on the of im tween Russell and various individuals agreement being in the does not result murder; plicated acqui Green’s the may seek en unenforceable. A defendant photograph sition Russell of a of Green. immunity agreement be forcement of the alleged The State the outlined events led to only appropriate doing so is “the cause that Russell aid the ineluctable conclusion process.” dictates of due relief within the Hopkin- conspired abetted and ed and Doe, 178, N.M. 704 (citing 103 Hall State procure son and others to the death of 432, (1984)). 435 P.2d theory of the State was con Green. explanation only trary to Russell’s that he perceived outlined what we perjured testimony to dis agreed to obtain requirements for appropriate procedural be testimony against Hopkin- credit Green’s has re determining whether a defendant knowledge plan son in that he had no of prosecution in the immunity from ceived to murder Green. a motion to dismiss opinion. We held Hall grant of must be premised on a probable After cause was determined trial, in hearing prior held for trial in the district addressed and Russell was (1988), (Supp. 14-2-108 P.2d Stat. 35-7-1043 §§ 1. In Hall v. 851 1262 (1987), 1992), (1986), legislature 20-4-121 26-2- in which 14-3-209 outlined the situations the (1977), (1991), (1988), grants immunity, 7- but there is 6-3-109 37-2-209 has authorized of (1991), (1987), Wyoming grant that the 11-401 7-5-206 9-1-804 no statute authorizes See, 1992). immunity by prosecutor. e.g., Wyo. (Supp. of 18-3-302 Wyo.R.Crim.P. reference, equivocal accordance with former lation or exactly hearing, initially At the defendant must at The proponent what occurred trial. of prima demonstrating make a the doctrine must demonstrate the exis- facie grant immunity. of If the defendant unequivocal tence a clear and rule of burden, meeting law; succeeds particular facts of the case establish, aby preponderance then must obviously, must just ar- evidence, immunity actually that no transgress guably, Finally, rule. granted, or what effective limitations met, these once criteria have been it or, extant must be shown that some substantial alternatively, that the defendant forfeited right adversely the accused has been immunity extended because the de- affected. These apply criteria even agreement. fendant’s breach when constitutional alleged; error is satisfied, each unless one them is Following hearing, such if the claim for plain-error review under the forward, permits go court Hampton doctrine must fail. defendant still choose to immu assert P.2d [Wyo.1977]. 507-508 nity as a defense at trial. The issue of immunity then would tried an affir Gresham, 55; (citing 708 P.2d at Daellen jury, mative defense and decided (Wyo. bach v. *5 using special a verdict form. In in this 1977)). stance, because the district court denied unequivocal The clear and law at ground Russell’s motion to dismiss on the imposing issue is that rule an affirmative affording pro of without him the duty on the court jury trial to ensure a of protections Hall, cedural described in we competent, fair, impartial persons reverse the conviction and remand the case impaneled. Summers v. 725 P.2d appropriate procedural protec so that the reh’g, 1033 on confirmed tions can be afforded. arriving P.2d In at a determi remaining fifteen errors as Of nation this by whether rule was violated Russell, by jury serted pro selection permitted trial court it when the hus employed cess the district court is in band to remain on jury, we acknowl distressing. deed The casual dismissal of edge the conduct of voir dire im and the possibilities prejudice expressed and bias paneling jury of a are functions committed by potential jurors in culminated service discretion trial court. Gres juror a who was the husband aof witness ham. do not reverse the exercise of for the State. Russell did not object to the discretion court absent clear remaining jury trial, husband at the Gresham; abuse. ulti Summers. The he, therefore, rely upon must the doc mate issue making to be resolved in plain trine of error. Gresham v. 708 determination of whether there has oc plain P.2d 49 The error doc curred an abuse discretion is whether applied trine should be sparingly and in reasonably the trial court could conclude as only voked seriously where the error af it did. integrity judicial fects the fairness or proceedings. Cutbirth v. in depicts record this case clear (Wyo.1983); Gresham. The burden of ly what occurred jury connection with establishing plain assigned error is dire, During selection. voir the husband Russell, appellant. as Gresham. admitted he was married witness case, he they stated years, For a number invoked have had, fact, discussed the case. The rec three-part test to determine whether colloquies ord juror with the are: plain error has been established: In alleged order for an error to fall Okay. Mr. [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: doctrine, specific Butters, within this going you minimum I’m pick out first. criteria must be It going met. must be clear I’m pick you for a second. record, from the without to specu- going go resort through I’m this with the Butters, [County Attorney]: your If in a bit but Mr. wife were to rest may testify, you give would her you anyone related to be a are anyone more or less credence than particular in this case? witness else’s? Yes, I am. MR. BUTTERS: MR. BUTTERS: No. you, Are

[COUNTY ATTORNEY]: Judge fact, her the person married to a [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: you same as other witness? particular witness this case? MR. Yeah. BUTTERS: MR. BUTTERS: Yes. you Would you [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: Have ATTORNEY]: [COUNTY Now, you go- feel that if she’s particular case with

talked about to— ing to be a State’s witness. spouse? your Right. MR. BUTTERS: MR. BUTTERS: Yes. you If were to [COUNTYATTORNEY]: you Have ATTORNEY]: [COUNTY guilty vote the Defendant was not your

the result formed conversations charged, you crimes do think that that opinion guilt as to the or innocence of might potentially cause a little marital guilt particular Defendant or of this you explain discord or would have to co-conspirators? yourself your wife? MR. BUTTERS: formed an MR. BUTTERS: No. [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: courtroom this case was about? many [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: *6 $ you sjc opinion? before morning No, sj: you I have not. n knew what this came into this You have not * * * How [*] n fendant’s Hopkinson [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: enough. MR. BUTTERS: spire Russell fense sjc theory concededly conspired kill theory # Jeff Green but that of the case is that Mark Hap of the case No, SjC Russell did not con- }jc * * The De- really. Okay. Fair and the De- tf: * to suborn Hap >}C two, three, four, five, One six—You must perjury Hopkinson. for Mark Have going have knew this trial was on this you theory that as a heard before? morning, Mr. Butters? Okay. Because it’s been mentioned MR. I starting BUTTERS: knew it was papers. going I didn’t I was

but know to be here Butters, you Mr. have? for this. nodded.) (Mr. MR. Butters BUTTERS: read a book the name of an [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: called individual. sjc n Gunning 3jC Gerry Spence? A an individual known as— lawyer up For Justice? % ijt # Sjc * * * Anyone in Jackson The book is SjC Sjc [*] SjC just one tial witness [DEFENSE MR. BUTTERS: understand that [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: >jc question. sjc in this case. COUNSEL]: you’re placed in the Right. sjc Your wife is a sjc And, again, I Mr. sjc Butters, poten- sjc hot MR. BUTTERS: I’ve read [COUNTY ATTORNEY]: MR. BUTTERS: Yes. center on the [COUNTYATTORNEY]: [*] [*] Hopkinson [*] [*] case? * * * part parts [*] Mr. of it. But- You indicated that —and I want to—Let me seat than wife’s You said that I’m not get testimony any going other phraseology right. to make the seat too hot. you witness; that, okay? more am I correct in not But the— give credibility your ters, got you. I’ve to the ask that?

MR. BUTTERS: Ask. MR. BUTTERS: Correct. in Rus- right. jurors, All other the record references COUNSEL]:

[DEFENSE you your only challenges by wife discussed Have sell’s brief disclose potential juror? service as a your facet of county attorney. challenge not Russell did cause, any juror for and the same rule is No. MR. BUTTERS: applicable relating the one to Mr. But- If I said that COUNSEL]: [DEFENSE addition, showing wife, In there is no my my wife would be mad at ters. about requisite prejudice by me. demonstration he preemptory forced to exercise a chal- Why? was MR. BUTTERS: lenge against unqualified juror. Parks Because I COUNSEL]: [DEFENSE 600 P.2d Our I in her more think she thinks believe of the record with being I’m examination anyone than else. And not partic- say you jury that. Would selection discloses that facetious when going your of, any problem rulings by, have back the trial ipation rendering say- a verdict and wife after imperative less and far less trouble- know, ing, just didn’t believe the “You presented in some than those other cases you your case and State’s which we have affirmed convictions when — credibility didn’t add sufficient amount of the same claim of error was asserted. See in this to it for me to render conviction Summers; Gresham. you any problem in case.” Would have doing that? briefly address the remainder of We issues, No, I wouldn’t. which we hold do not con MR. BUTTERS: Russell’s stitute reversible error. In his seventh is challenged Mr. Butters for cause2 sue, Russell contends his conviction should peremptory challenge nor was exer- and the case dismissed due to be reversed Despite collegiate cised as to him. our pre-arrest delay. es unconstitutional amazement that the husband of a material pre- the test for unconstitutional tablished permitted witness for the State was delay Story juror, serve as a we can discern no revers- arrest challenge denied, By ible error. his failure to cert. 479 U.S. trial, juror acceptance panel at 107 S.Ct. Rus any objection has Russell waived pre-arrest delay demonstrate the sell must juror. service of this Frias v. prejudice resulted in substantial *7 (Wyo.1986); Lopez P.2d 135 trial, right delay and the was an to a fair (Wyo.1976). P.2d 855 Jahnke v. See gain to ad intentional device some tactical 682 P.2d 991 In to vantage Story. over him. order prejudice, Russell is establish substantial respect general With claim of required probabili reasonable to show with error that the trial forced the de that, ty delay, for the the result of his peremptory challenges fense to to re but use jurors different. move biased and inhibited trial would be (iv) juror Having juror relationship 2. A between a and a witness served as a or witness in grounds challenge is not one of the for cause previous parties trial between the same Wyo.Stat. action, set forth in provides: 1-11-203 which § being the same cause of or then therein; witness (a) Challenges for cause be taken on (v) juror part Interest on the of the in the (1) grounds: following one or more of the action, question event or involved in the but (i) qualifications pre- A lack of juror not an interest of the as a member or person scribed statute which render a com- municipal corporation; citizen of a petent juror; as a (vi) Having expressed unqual- formed or (ii) Relationship by consanguinity or affini- opinion ified or belief as to the or the merits ty degree party; within the third to either reading question main of the action. The (iii) Standing in the relation of debtor or subject newspaper accounts of the matter be- creditor, ward, servant, guardian or master or disqualify juror fore the court shall not principal agent party, being or or to either or opinion; either for bias or partner party, united in business with either (vii) of a state of mind in the The existence being security obligation or bond or evincing enmity party. juror or bias for either party; for either on, of, -ruling discussion May was killed Green complaint criminal issue. filed its and the State has artic in 1987. Russell against Russell Finally, consider Russell’s claims of persuasive ways fairly ulated several regarding the introduction of back error delay may have result pre-arrest

which the hearsay testimony and certain testi ground failed, him. He has prejudice to ed respect to ad mony. Determinations with pre-arrest delay however, to establish missibility are vested with of evidence also faith of an intentional bad product was the court, discretion of the trial in the sound advantage by the pursuit of a tactical rulings on do not disturb those and we asserts, regard, in this Russell State. clear of discretion. appeal absent a abuse delayed prosecution until the State (Wyo. Jennings 806 P.2d 1299 not feel prosecutor who would election of a 1991). this record results Our review of immunity agreement obligated to honor the that the decision of the a conclusion entirely specu him. This assertion with permit to the introduction court and, sup evidence to without some lative testimony, its further decision hearsay allegation, we cannot attribute port this permit the introduction of certain back delay in to the State’s such a motivation evidence, not outside the ground not find error charging Russell. We do reason. We find no abuse bounds of delay. arising pre-arrest out error with re and no reversible discretion by Russell’s unpersuaded also are spect to the admission evidence. assistance of counsel claim of ineffective ap- the failure to follow the Because of through nine- in his fourteenth outlined respect to a deter- propriate procedure with respect issues. Our law with teenth immunity, we reverse mination as to of counsel is well es- ineffective assistance in this case. It is judgment and sentence and, since we have concluded tablished court for a remanded to the trial on other is entitled to a new trial Russell immunity, and respect this issue in grounds, we do not address immunity is found not to trial if for a new motion, do, note detail. We of our own to Russell. be available that, assis- if a contention of ineffective had been asserted with tance of counsel juror, it

respect Mr. service as a URBIGKIT, (Retired), Butters’ specially filed a J. any prejudice. difficult to discern would be concurring dissenting opinion. impeached; His wife’s was CARDINE, J., dissenting opinion filed her straightforward with MACY, C.J., joined. in which facts; was, in knowledge of material other circumstantial evi- connection with Justice, Retired, URBIGKIT, specially dence, Had consistent with the verdict. dissenting. concurring and ju- his oath as a Mr. Butters not honored of this court in the decision concur ror, apparent to us that it would it is not *8 of the trial case for failure remand the respect to made difference with have procedure appropriate court “to follow the verdict. as to respect to a determination through thir- In his issues numbered nine * * However, require *.” nity teen, prosecu- questions of Russell asserts to a fair and reassignment of the case find no reversible torial misconduct. We the reasons disinterested and to issues twelve error with concurring opinion in Hall v. my in stated regarding prosecutorial miscon- thirteen State, 851 P.2d 1262 guilt in Russell’s stating in a belief duct re- though conviction will be Even opinion concerning his eliciting an and required, I a new trial however, versed and assume, no such state- guilt. We circumstances, accept cannot, under repeated at new trial of ments will be by this court for provided justification other We do not discuss Russell’s Russell. of a witness misconduct, of the husband retention questions prosecutorial prose- Particularly light in of the jury. our which have been resolved most of 1282 CARDINE, cution effort directed Justice, toward this and other dissenting, with pkin Hopkinson, MACY, cases related to Mark C.J., whom joins. Ho son v. cert. 632 P.2d 79 The majority opinion reverses this case denied, 922, 1280, 455 U.S. 102 S.Ct. 71 for the sole hearing reason that no was denied, (1982), cert. L.Ed.2d 463 464 U.S. held to determine whether Russell had im- 908, 262, 104 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed.2d 246 munity from prosecution for murder. principle attention to the of basic fairness concur all of opinion except the re- required. is versal on immunity question because of I am unwillingness distressed with the failure to Denno-type hearing. hold a A Wyoming Supreme require Court to hearing required is not where the nature impartial jury guaranteed fair and and extent of immunity granted clearly is 1, 6;

Wyo. 1, Wyo. Const. art. Const. art. § upon stated the record. On the record 9; and the Sixth Amendment of the Unit § granted Russell was not immunity pros- ed States Constitution as well as the Four ecution of murder. teenth Amendment of the United States I would affirm the conviction. Acceptance Constitution. obviously I believe the requirement for a Denno- partisan and far from jury disinterested type hearing adopted in Hall v. Amin v. (Wyo.1991) 255 1993), 851 (Wyo. P.2d 1262 should be limited constitutionally implausible. was We now to those situations in which move on to a status which defines the granted cannot be discerned from egregious ultimate error. In this circum the record or those cases in which it is stance, defense counsel and the accused claimed that immunity was lost might equally, preferably, or be served a breach immunity agreement. Such having a prose member staff of the might breach abe claim of testify failure to cutor sit on the jury. criminal trial fully and truthfully. “ securing preservation ‘The and of an Russell v. State is not a case which a impartial jury goes very to the essence of required. should be Sheppard Maxwell, a fair trial. See agreement put and, my on record 333, 362-63, 1507, 384 1522, U.S. 86 S.Ct. judgment, is clear. In a letter to Mr. Rus- 600, (1966); 16 L.Ed.2d 620 Estes Tex attorney, sell’s P. Moriarity, Spe- as, Edward 532, 1628, 381 U.S. 85 S.Ct. 14 Prosecutor, cial County, Uinta Wyoming, 543, den., L.Ed.2d 875, reh. 382 U.S. 86 wrote: 18, S.Ct. It has

long recognized been upon your under Conditional the federal client appearing constitution that a before a defendant is Federal Jury testify- entitled Grand to a ing fully honestly free of outside influ about certain ac- ences and will decide the tivities that according he has been involved in relat- arguments evidence and ed to presented one Mark Hopkinson Allen in court in the course of the conditional your full, criminal trial client’s com- Colorado, itself. Patterson v. plete, honest testimony cooperation 205 U.S. 454, 462, 556, 558, 879, S.Ct. later 51 L.Ed. state and proceedings federal ” (1907) (Holmes, J.).’ involving subject matter, the same we as special prosecutors, agree will Amin, 272, Urbigkit, C.J., 811 P.2d at dis- charge Mr. Russell in state court with senting (quoting Marshall, State v. perjury conspiracy subordination of or N.J. (1991) 586 A.2d and State v. *9 perjury, suborn [emphasis Williams, added] 60-61, 93 N.J. 459 A.2d 641 (1983)). The transcript Hopkinson's from Mark fear,

I trial for the decision, murder of with this Jeff Green further that the court clarifies the extent immunity grant- leaves no limits degree to the partisan- ed ship to Mr. that is Russell: acceptable for an individual to be retained as a member of a Wyoming MR. SPENCE: ask the Court in [W]e jury. criminal trial justice furtherance of to immunity plain old nity, not use but LOVE, Kimbrough to the immunity but limited

transactional William (Plaintiff), Appellant immunity perjury. That means issue of any this witness has matters which directly indirectly in been involved or ob- LOVE, Appellee Chon Mikkelson arranging taining suborning, purchasing, (Defendant). perju- perjury conspiracy or to obtain ry perju- No. 92-183. or other matters relative z, perjury. ry, from a to under Supreme Wyoming. Court of murder; Nothing respect nothing with 7,May respect to with other crimes. That’s our motion.

THE COURT: The motion will be

granted upon said. based what’s been use, opposed

It’s transactional as

further based oath witness’ he is about give.

Okay, Mr. Russell? [emphasis Okay,

MR. RUSSELL:

added] immunity granted from

prosecution per- attempt for an to obtain

jured testimony, Special Prosecutor

Spence specifically stated record immunity granted

that the did not include prosecution

immunity from for murder.

The State does not claim that Russell lost he failed tell Thus, logical

truth. there is no need nor .hearing

reason for a Denno or other

type hearing. simply The State claims

that, record, upon the Russell never re- prosecution

ceived from for mur- agree.

der. No further is need-

ed, would, it anything. nor would add

therefore, affirm.