I don't believe it's correct that WA is "being offered immunity." The quotes from KM's attorney make clear that he's referring to the immunity WA would
automatically get under Florida law for the testimony she gives at trial pursuant to a subpoena. That's not the prosecution offering her immunity; there's a
Florida statute that confers such immunity to anyone who testifies pursuant to subpoena. And this type of immunity just means that her testimony at trial can't later be used against her (except in a perjury case); she could still be prosecuted using other evidence. Here's the whole statute:
914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.—No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed.
