Yeah, the statute wasn't very clear on the timing of immunity and how that's supposed to work.
The courts have worked it out over the last decade, though.
In 2013, the Ga. Supreme Court decided a case involving a situation where the DA's office didn't put up any evidence to oppose Mr. Hipp's testimony at his pre-trial immunity hearing, and the judge nonetheless found that Hipp wasn't entitled to immunity. Then the case went to trial where the State did carry its burden and put up a lot of evidence proving Hipp was guilty of starting a fight and then brandishing a knife in anger. But, after Hipp was convicted, he made a successful motion that the Court should have granted him immunity before trial, and the pretrial hearing on immunity was wrongly decided given the evidence and testimony produced THEN. Hipp correctly observed that he should have won then, and never faced a trial at all. The Supreme Court ruled that if he can convince the trial judge of this, the trial court can reverse its immunity ruling and retroactively dismiss the charges (even after learning that the P.O.S. troublemaker was guilty all along... the real error was with the DA's office for not putting up enough of the State's evidence at that 16-3-24.2 hearing!)
S1211G24 Hipp v. Georgia (decided July 11, 2013)
The courts have worked it out over the last decade, though.
In 2013, the Ga. Supreme Court decided a case involving a situation where the DA's office didn't put up any evidence to oppose Mr. Hipp's testimony at his pre-trial immunity hearing, and the judge nonetheless found that Hipp wasn't entitled to immunity. Then the case went to trial where the State did carry its burden and put up a lot of evidence proving Hipp was guilty of starting a fight and then brandishing a knife in anger. But, after Hipp was convicted, he made a successful motion that the Court should have granted him immunity before trial, and the pretrial hearing on immunity was wrongly decided given the evidence and testimony produced THEN. Hipp correctly observed that he should have won then, and never faced a trial at all. The Supreme Court ruled that if he can convince the trial judge of this, the trial court can reverse its immunity ruling and retroactively dismiss the charges (even after learning that the P.O.S. troublemaker was guilty all along... the real error was with the DA's office for not putting up enough of the State's evidence at that 16-3-24.2 hearing!)
S1211G24 Hipp v. Georgia (decided July 11, 2013)
