This is not correct. Plenty of would-be defendants take deals to testify. Negotiating a deal after you testify is a ridiculous idea and if it has ever happened once, I would love to hear the story.
She is getting the leniency from the sentencing reform act of 1984 which is predicated on cooperation. No way prosecutors have given her a damn thing. Yes, many cases use snitches because that is the only way to win the case, but it is fraught with peril because of the obvious incentive to lie. Prosecutors avoid deals, and sentencing guidelines already provide for leniency for cooperation. When it is all over, they may, at their own discretion, decide not to pursue charges against her.
Out of perhaps an over abundance of curiosity, what would be your take on, say, Massachusetts Rules of Evidence Section 1104? What sorts of things do you think Massachusetts would promise a witness?
They don’t make specific promises except as a last resort because of things like 1104. I know a specific example of the feds losing a case because they granted immunity to get someone to fly to the US to testify. The witness completely blew the prosecution’s case. A federal prosecutor losing is quite the stain on their reputation. Immunity deals are the fastest way to blow a case.
The witness is supposed to say they cooperated because the law provides lighter sentences for those who cooperate voluntarily.
I think a more reasonable interpretation is “they make specific promises so frequently that there had to be a rule enacted to deal with it. I agree that you know about one case where a cooperation witness with immunity caused a problem. As to your initial claims that there is “zero chance she was offered a deal” or that any cooperation must be voluntary, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
