Convening authorities generally cannot revoke properly granted immunity based solely on inconsistent testimony, as this would violate fundamental fairness and due process principles. Once testimonial or transactional immunity is granted and relied upon, witnesses have provided consideration by testifying. Revoking immunity for perceived inconsistencies would chill witness cooperation and create impossible situations where witnesses face prosecution regardless of testimony. The grant creates binding obligations absent narrow exceptions.
Limited revocation authority exists for testimonial immunity if witnesses completely refuse to testify after grants, not for testimony content. Perjury prosecutions remain available for knowingly false testimony, but truthful inconsistencies don’t void immunity. The original grant’s scope controls – if immunity covered the subject matter, inconsistent versions still fall within protection. Witnesses may clarify or correct testimony without losing immunity protection.
Procedurally, immunity agreements should specify terms and any conditions. Attempts to include “truthful testimony” requirements face enforceability challenges, as determining truth often proves impossible before testimony. Military judges scrutinize post-testimony revocation attempts, typically finding government bound by original grants. The remedy for false testimony is perjury prosecution, not immunity revocation. This protection ensures witnesses aren’t trapped between potential prosecutions, encouraging cooperation while maintaining perjury deterrents.