What documents detail the exact terms of Gerald Wood’s immunity agreement in the Tina Peters case?
Executive summary
A review of contemporary reporting finds repeated references that Gerald Wood sought and was granted some form of immunity before testifying to the grand jury in the Tina Peters matter, and that prosecutors described that immunity as limited rather than blanket protection [1] [2]. None of the provided sources, however, publish or point to the actual written immunity agreement or its precise terms, and public court filings available in these reports do not reproduce a signed immunity document [3] [4].
1. What the reporting says happened: Wood sought and received immunity before grand jury testimony
Multiple news outlets covering the Peters prosecution report that Wood sought immunity prior to giving grand‑jury and trial testimony, and that defense counsel highlighted this during cross‑examination to suggest Wood may have been motivated by fear of prosecution [1] [5] [3]. Colorado Newsline quotes a prosecutor clarifying that Wood’s protection was “limited, not full,” and that the district attorney retained the ability to prosecute him for perjury or other crimes if he lied under oath [2]. Those factual summaries in reporting establish that some prosecutorial accommodation was made, but they stop short of reproducing an immunity contract or docket entry that spells out clauses and conditions [1] [2].
2. Where the exact terms would normally be found — and why they aren’t in these reports
In a criminal matter the precise language of any immunity deal is ordinarily memorialized in a written agreement (for example, a “use and derivative‑use” immunity letter, or a proffer agreement with limited grants) filed with or retained by the prosecutor’s office; alternatively, terms can be reflected in court minutes if the judge reads them on the record (none of which the provided reporting reproduces) [3]. The assembled articles and the appellate docket excerpts in the reporting reference immunity as a fact of the prosecution’s case but do not publish the document itself or quote its provisions, suggesting that either the agreement was not part of publicly released filings or that reporters did not obtain it for publication [4] [3].
3. Conflicting framings in the coverage: “immunity” versus “limited immunity”
Coverage diverges in tone: several outlets repeatedly describe Wood as having “obtained an immunity agreement” before testifying, implying a protective deal [3] [5], while at least one report highlights the district attorney’s clarification that the grant was limited and did not bar prosecution for other crimes or perjury [2]. That distinction matters legally — full transactional immunity differs from limited use immunity — but the available reporting does not supply the legal instrument needed to resolve which category Wood’s deal fits [2] [3].
4. What’s missing from the public record, per these sources
None of the provided pieces includes or cites the signed immunity agreement, and none reproduces a docket entry that publicly files its text; appellate filings referenced in the coverage discuss immunity claims in the context of Peters’ broader constitutional arguments but do not append Wood’s agreement verbatim to the excerpts cited here [4] [6]. Reporters and trial transcripts quoted in the coverage relay witnesses’ and lawyers’ characterizations of an agreement but do not supply a copy of the agreement that would allow independent verification of exact terms [1] [7].
5. How to locate the actual document (limitations of this review)
To obtain the exact terms, the necessary documents would typically be: the written immunity agreement or proffer between Wood and the Mesa County district attorney (or any coordinating prosecutor), any plea or immunity paperwork filed in the trial court docket, and — if placed on the record — the grand jury or trial transcript passages where immunity was read into the record; the sources in this packet do not provide those items, so this analysis cannot quote the agreement itself [2] [4]. Absent those texts in the provided reporting, definitive claims about wording, carve‑outs, or the scope of protection cannot be made here; the public reporting only supports that an agreement existed and was described as limited [1] [2].
6. Competing narratives and implicit agendas in coverage
Defense attorneys in the Peters coverage used the existence of an immunity deal to cast doubt on Wood’s credibility, while prosecutors emphasized limits to the immunity to undercut that tactic; local outlets and partisan outlets alike tended to emphasize the angle that best fit their audience, with some papers repeating “immunity” as shorthand and others insisting on the qualifier “limited,” which is an implicit editorial choice shaping readers’ perceptions [3] [2] [8]. Reporters cite the legal tug‑of‑war but stop short of producing the underlying document that would let readers evaluate those competing narratives directly [2] [3].