Key Figures in Iran Scandal Won’t Receive Grants of Immunity Soon

Key figures in the Iranian arms scandal, including Lt. Col. Oliver L. North and Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, will not receive grants of immunity from prosecution any time soon from either Congress or the independent counsel who is investigating the affair, according to several legal sources involved in the matter.

As a result, the sources said, official inquiries into the scandal will be protracted. Principal figures in the case, fearful that their testimony would be used in possible prosecutions against them, will continue to invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the sources said.

“If there are any indictments in this case, you’re looking at two years as a minimum and five years at the outside” to complete the work, said a Justice Department official with knowledge of some aspects of the investigation.

On Two Fronts

Investigations are proceeding on two fronts. Newly appointed investigating committees in the Senate and House, picking up this year where several other congressional committees left off, are trying to piece together the facts of the U.S. arms sales to Iran and the diversion of some of the profits to the contras in Nicaragua.

Separately, an independent counsel was chosen by a federal court last month to determine whether Administration officials have violated any laws. The independent counsel--Lawrence E. Walsh, a former federal judge and high Justice Department official--has taken over the investigation that the Justice Department and the FBI had been conducting.

Walsh last week announced the appointment of 11 associates in offices in Washington and New York. He estimated the staff would eventually total fewer than 25--far smaller than the more than 150 who made up the Watergate special prosecution force but bigger than other independent counsel operations since the post was established in 1978.

Granting of Immunity

Although Walsh would not discuss such questions about his fledgling investigation as whether witnesses would be granted immunity in return for their testimony, other lawyers predicted he would be unlikely to seek immunity soon for important government officials.

“You most often give immunity to lower-ranking suspects in order to get the top people,” one source said, refusing to speak for attribution. “If these are the top players themselves, why would you want to give it to them?”

Instead, a lawyer involved in the case said, Walsh is likely to seek information from others with some knowledge of the Iran arms sales--particularly members of the White House National Security Council staff.

Poindexter, who headed that staff until he resigned last November, and North, who was a member of the staff until he was fired on the same day, have both invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination to escape answering questions from congressional committees.

Right to Silence

If Poindexter and North use the same strategy when questioned by the independent counsel, Walsh could ask a federal judge to grant them immunity from being prosecuted on the basis of their testimony--if Walsh suspected higher-ups broke the law. That would deprive Poindexter and North of their right to silence and leave them vulnerable to a charge of contempt of court--and a jail sentence--if they continued to refuse to testify.

Congress, like federal prosecutors, can go to court to obtain immunity from prosecution in return for full testimony from witnesses. But leaders of the congressional investigations said they would hesitate to seek immunity if to do so would interfere with Walsh’s chances of lodging criminal charges against witnesses.

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the new Senate investigating committee, said he has personally promised Walsh his cooperation. “I have assured the independent counsel that before we discuss the matter of immunity in the committee, we will bring it to his attention and maintain the closest consultation and give him an opportunity to have input,” Inouye said.

Hamilton Comments

Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), chairman of the House investigating committee, told The Times that “we will not be taking up the question of immunity for some time.”

“Questions of congressional immunity will depend largely upon the course of the investigation by the independent counsel as well as the cooperation we receive--or lack of cooperation--from witnesses like Col. North and Adm. Poindexter,” Hamilton said.

Some attorneys associated with the Iranian arms case said the congressional investigating committees would avoid seeking immunity for anyone at an early date, partly because extensive field investigations must first be accomplished and partly because responsible members of Congress do not wish to foreclose prosecutions by Walsh if he uncovers criminal wrongdoing.

“Based on the Watergate experience, I’m guessing it will be several months before Walsh reaches major decisions on who might be prosecutable,” said a defense attorney who declined to be named.

‘Hung Out to Dry’

A Republican Senate attorney who requested anonymity added that the Democratic-controlled investigating committees might prefer to delay grants of immunity to key witnesses “just to drag out this investigation as long as they can. They have no reason to be in a hurry as long as the Reagan Administration is being hung out to dry.”

Another attorney who represents a potential defendant said he feared that the Senate and House committees might rush to grant immunity in order to be the first to obtain the testimony of key witnesses. The first grants of congressional immunity, he said, “will not be based on the merits, but will come because one committee is fearful that its counterpart is going to immunize some key figure first and steal the headlines.” In 1970, Congress provided that its committees could grant so-called “use immunity” to witnesses who otherwise would refuse to testify about their roles in possible criminal activities. With that kind of immunity, no part of their testimony--or any leads derived from it--can be used to prosecute them.

10 Days’ Notice

The law states that a committee must first give federal prosecutors--including independent counsels--10 days’ notice before asking a federal judge to order immunity for a witness. Under the law, the judge must honor the congressional request for immunity and cannot alter it or attach any conditions to it.

The prosecutor’s only power is to obtain an additional 20 days from the judge to prepare evidence against the witness and submit it to the court in a sealed envelope. The witness could then be prosecuted based on evidence in the envelope or material gathered totally independently of anything the witness revealed in congressional testimony.

In the Watergate cover-up case, for example, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox preserved his cases against former presidential aides John W. Dean III and Jeb Stuart Magruder before they gave Senate testimony by presenting a federal court sealed envelopes containing evidence against them.

But in the same case, prosecution of Gordon C. Strachan, a former aide to White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman, was dropped after he was granted immunity on grounds that his own testimony might have been used to question others about him or to persuade prosecutors to seek his indictment.

In the nationally televised Senate hearings for which he was provided immunity, Strachan had testified that he had destroyed possibly relevant documents after the Watergate break-in and had delivered $350,000 in cash that was later used to pay off defendants in the case.

Congress is typically more likely than prosecutors to grant immunity to potential defendants. Immunity interferes with the primary job of prosecutors, which is to charge individuals with crimes, but it eases the way for congressional committees to collect information and write legislation to remedy the abuses they uncover.