New Grand Jury Studies Iran-Contra Testimony

Iran-Contra prosecutors are using a new grand jury to review testimony from last year’s congressional hearings in an apparent investigation of possible perjury by witnesses in the case.

The prosecutors working for independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh have been playing videotapes of the House-Senate hearings to the federal grand jury, which has been meeting on the case for about three weeks, said sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Because grand jury proceedings are secret, it is unclear who might be suspected of lying under oath, either to Congress or to the original Iran-Contra grand jury that returned indictments earlier this year.

May Compare Testimony

But the panel could compare testimony a witness gave to Congress with facts developed by Walsh’s investigation, as well as sworn statements that the individual or others made to the original Iran-Contra grand jury.

So far, the grand jury has not heard any witnesses in person, the sources said, indicating that prosecutors are laying groundwork for the investigation by playing videotapes of the 1987 hearings.

The new grand jury, unlike the one that indicted fired White House aide Oliver L. North and other figures in the Iran-Contra affair, is free to review congressional testimony given under grants of limited immunity from prosecution for evidence of perjury.

Such grants of “use immunity” prohibit prosecutors from using a witness’ testimony or evidence derived from it to prosecute that individual in court on criminal charges.

The immunized testimony, however, could be used as evidence in a perjury case if the witness lied to Congress or to a grand jury.

Could Develop Leads

It could also be used as evidence that another person committed a crime, raising the possibility that the new panel could develop leads from the congressional hearings that could not be followed up by the original Iran-Contra grand jury.

Walsh and most of his prosecution staff carefully isolated themselves from news coverage of the House-Senate committee hearings to avoid exposure to the immunized congressional testimony.

The independent counsel did not want to be left open to defense accusations that his office illegally relied on the immunized testimony as evidence.