In response to tvoter's comment:
In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:
In response to tvoter's comment:She's not getting immunity if, it's just her involved in wrong doing. She will have to spill "off the record" or at least tell a few implicated names before being granted immunity inho. [QUOTE]
I'm assuming they may find themselves needing to take a gamble to get more info.
You would probably have better insight. It seems to me (at least on TV lol) the investigators already know what she will say or knows. Its just a matter of getting her to spill?
It's a whole mix of factors. How much they know, how much they suspect, how important it is that she go to jail (if they already know she did wrong) vs. how important it is to chase the matter higher.
If they already know a ton, then they may give her immunity. For the same sort of reasons they interrogated the marathon bomber w/o Miranda: They figured they easily had enough to convict, so the interrogated in order to dredge up more suspects even if the statements leading to those suspects would be inadmissible. Well, here they wouldn't be able to charge her if they granted her immunity....but, that may not be nearly as important to them as chasing it higher up. So....let a fish potentially go.
In fact, they may have a lot on her, no evidence suggesting it goes higher, and still decide to make a gamble to grant her immunity.
Note: I believe that if she is granted immunity for her own wrong doing, lies to protect someone above her, and they can later prove she lied....she's still on the hook for perjury.