WASHINGTON -- Congress wants answers fast about the stunning collapse of Enron Corp., and could offer immunity to get them. Former prosecutors warn, however, that deals made to get people to speak freely at the Capitol could wreck criminal investigations.
Immunity ensures that information witnesses provide to Congress will not later be used against them in a courtroom.
In 1987, Lt. Col. Oliver North initially refused to tell Congress about the Iran-Contra affair for fear of incriminating himself. The National Security Council aide talked after being given immunity. North's eventual convictions on three felony counts in the arms-for-hostages scandal were thrown out because of the deal.
Stephen Saltzburg, who teaches criminal law at George Washington University, said prosecutors dislike immunity deals.
"But if Congress really believed it was more important to let the public know what was going on, they could make the judgment ... it was worth it," he said.
One person who did agree to testify last week, Arthur Andersen attorney Nancy Temple, endured intense questioning. Her experiences will discourage others from answering questions without immunity, a defense attorney said.
Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel in the Iran-Contra probe, said Congress must move carefully.
"They will feel the pressure to do something quickly. They've got to figure out a format to avoid destroying a criminal investigation like they did before," he said. "I hope they learned. I think they did learn."
Congress and criminal investigators operate differently. Congress seeks information that can be used for new policies and collects it publicly so as to inform the public. Investigators build criminal cases mostly in private.
Prosecutors pursuing convictions of people with congressional immunity must prove their case is not derived from the public testimony. They also must show that witnesses or jurors had no knowledge of the testimony.