Twiggs Immunity

XI. The Central Witness Received Both Federal and State Immunity

The recorded interview itself confirms that Twiggs had been granted both federal and state immunity relating to the material he discussed. Source: rev.com Immunity does not automatically make a witness dishonest. But it creates a direct reason for rigorous cross-examination.

• what conduct Twiggs feared could expose him to prosecution;
• why federal immunity was necessary;
• why state immunity was necessary;
• what investigators believed he might have done;
• whether the agreements required truthfulness;
• what benefits he expected;
• whether immunity covered obstruction, evidence handling or account access;
• how many times he was interviewed;
• what changed between interviews;
• what information investigators disclosed to him before the April interview;
• and whether he had reviewed messages, media reports or charging allegations before giving his recorded account.

Instead, the State presented Twiggs by video. The defense did not conduct live cross-examination before the Court. That matters because Twiggs was not merely a corroborating witness.

• the alleged confession;
• the alleged note;
• authorship of the messages;
• the Dremel;
• motive;
• Mr. Robinson’s schedule;
• Mr. Robinson’s alleged return;
• Mr. Robinson’s alleged in-person admission;
• and his supposed emotional reaction.

The prosecution was permitted to ask Twiggs questions in a controlled recorded setting after immunity had been granted. The defense was denied the equivalent opportunity to confront him live before the factfinder. The State cannot convert an immunized, un-cross-examined account into unquestioned fact merely by playing it on a screen.