envision that a district court may make preliminary findings of fact necessary to decide the questions of law presented by a pre-trial motion so long as the court’s findings on the motion do not invade the province of the ultimate finder of fact.” United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661, 664-65 (6th Cir.1976). See also 24 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 612.07[1] (3rd ed.1997). Moreover, a district court must decide a pretrial motion prior to trial if deferring a decision would adversely affect a party’s right to appeal. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(e). A claim of an enforceable promise of immunity which prohibits a particular prosecution presents an issue to be decided by the court rather than the jury. See, e.g., United States v. McLaughlin, 957 F.2d 12, 16 (1st Cir.1992)(<HOLDING>); United States v. Rodman, 519 F.2d 1058,
holding that trial court did not err in refusing to give charge because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his requested charge was tailored to the evidence holding that trial court did not err holding that the district court did not err in determining that inadvertent disclosure did not result in waiver holding that district court did not err in concluding after an evidentiary hearing that the immunity agreement between defendant and the government did not extend to the charge being prosecuted holding that the district court did not err by concluding that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for continuance motion to withdraw and motion for reconsideration and rehearing