Immunity is a big deal at State Board of Elections hearings.
Next week, when the board holds hearings into the campaign finance activity of former Gov. Mike Easley, a key question for observers is which, if any, witnesses are granted immunity.
Immunity of course, would prevent prosecutors from charging witnesses with any crimes they testify about. But it would also help ensure that a witness actually has something to say, besides invoking the Constitutional right against self-incrimination. We don't know whether anyone will take the Fifth, but we wouldn't be surprised if it comes up a time or two.
Expect the board and prosecutors to be in lockstep on who gets immunity. That's a lesson learned the hard way during the Meg Scott Phipps hearings in 2002.
—————
The board was investigating irregularities in Phipps campaign finance account. Prosecutors gave immunity to two witnesses who admitted giving Phipps illegal campaign contributions, in part to help sway her decision on awarding the State Fair midway contract.
The Board found that Phipps was guilty of "grossly negligent" violations of campaign finance law. It issued $130,000 in penalties.
After the hearing, federal and state investigators opened a probe into Phipps. The immunity agreements hampered those efforts, Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby said then.
"I've never seen anything like this," he said at the time.
Investigators eventually found evidence that Phipps had extorted thousands from carnival companies. Phipps was sent to federal prison and several of her aides and associates were convicted.
The exercise likely cemented a partnership between state and federal authorities on issues such as who should be immune from prosecution.




Re: Immunity a key question
I still think phipps is a good woman