Complete relief can be granted in the absence of Harris. For this reason, Harris is not an indispensable party to this appeal. The trial court ruled, on May 6, 1999, that the Commonwealth lacked authority to unilaterally grant Harris testimonial immunity; therefore, Harris could not be compelled to testify. The privilege against self-incrimination recognizes the danger to a witness forced to give testimony, which may then lead to imposition of punishment for the witness’ role in the offense. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). However, the prosecution may enter into an agreement with a defendant, stating that it will not prosecute him in exchange for testimony to be given at trial. Cf. Bray v. Commonwealth, Ky., 703 S.W.2d 478, 479 (1985) (<HOLDING>). Where such a promise has been made, the
holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty holding that a remote tippee must know that original exchange was given in exchange for benefit holding that the witness had accepted immunity in exchange for no prosecution holding as brady violation prosecutions failure to disclose to defense that prosecution had agreed not to prosecute key witness in exchange for his testimony at trial holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness