2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-23-2006 

# S t olt Niel se n v

. U SA
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-1480

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" S t o lt Nie l s e n v

. U SA" (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1338. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1338P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 1480

S T O L T -N IE L S E N , S .A .; S T O L T -N IE L S E N T R A N S P O R T A T IO N G R O U P L T D .;

RI CH AR D B
. W I NG FI ELD

v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D
. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 04- cv- 00537) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Ti m ot hyJ
. Savage

A r gued Sept ember30, 2005T h e n Ju d g e , n o w Ju stic e , A lit o h e a rd o ra l ar g u m e n t in * this case b u t w as e leva ted to the U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt on J anuary31, 2006. T hi s opi ni on i s fi l ed bya quorum of the p an el. 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 4 6 (d). H onor abl e J ane A

. R es t ani , C hi ef J udge, U ni t ed St at es ** C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 B efor e: A L I T O and A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udges * R E ST A N I , J udge

** ( O pi ni on fi l ed: M ar ch 23, 2006) R . H e w ittP a te A s s i s t antA t t or neyG ener al Scot tD
. H amm ond M a k a n D e lra h im D eputyA s s i s t antA t t or ney s G ener al Jo h n P
. F o n te, E sq u ir e J ohn J

. Pow er s , I I I , E s qui r e ( A r gued) U ni t ed St at es D epart m entof J us t i ce A nt i t rus tD i vi s i on, R oom 30224 9 5 0 P e n n s y l v a n i a A v e n u e , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C

. 20530 R o b ert E
. C o n n o ll y , E sq u ir e A n ton ia R

. H il l, E sq u ir e W en d yB
. N o rm an , E sq u ir e K im b erlyJu sti ce , E sq u ir e R icha rd S

. R o sen b erg , E sq u ir e3 U
. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce O ne Inde pen den ce S qu are W est 7t h & W al nutSt r eet s , Sui t e 650 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 2424 C ouns el forA ppel l ant Ian M
. C o m isky , E sq u ir e M atth ew D
. L ee , E sq u ir e Bl a n k Rome LLP O n e L o g an S q u are 130 N or t h 18t h St r eet Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 G eo rge J. T erw il li n g er III, E sq u ir e Jo h n M
. G idley , E sq u ir e C hr i s t opherM
. C ur r an, E s qui r e ( A r gued) L u cius B
. L au , E sq u ir e W h i t e & Ca s e LLP 7 0 1 T h i r t e e n t h S t r e e t , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C

. 20005 C ouns el forA ppel l ee St ol t
- N i el s en S. A

. and St ol t
- N i el s en Tra ns por t at i on G r oup L t d. R o b erta D
. L iebe n b erg , E sq u ir e A l l en D
. B l ack, E s qui r e ( A r gued) G era rd A

. D ev er, E sq u ir e Fi ne, K apl an & B l ack 1835 M arketSt r eet , 28t h Fl oor Sui t e 23004 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 Jam es A

. B ac k str o m , Jr. , E sq u ir e Sui t e 200 T w o Penn C ent erPl aza Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 C ouns el forA ppel l ee R ich a rd B . W in g f

ield

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

A M B R O , C i r cui tJ udge T hi s cas e r ai s es a s i gni fi cantcon s t i tut i onal ques t i on of fi r s ti m pr essi o n i n t hi s C i r cui t : w hetherfede r al cour t s have author i t y , cons i s t entw i t h t he s epar at i on of pow er s , t o enj oi n t he exec ut i ve br anch f

r om fi l i ng an i ndi ctm ent
. A l t hough fede r al cour t s have t hi s author i t y i n narr ow ci r cumst ance s , w e conc l ude t hatt hi s i s nots uch a c as e an d there for e r ever s e the D i s t r i ct C o u r t ’ s j u d g m e n tt o t h e c o n t r a r y.5 I. A . Backg r ound A p p e llee S to lt-N ie ls e n , S .A ., th r o u g h it s s u b s id ia r yS to ltNi e l s e n Tr a n s p o rt a t i on G r oup L t d. ( col l ect i vel y“St ol t
- N i el s en” ort he “Com pany ”) , i s a l eadi ng s upp li er of par cel t anker s h i ppi ng s ervi ces . I n M ar ch 2002, St ol t
- N i el s en’ s gener al couns el , Paul O ’ B r i en, r es ign ed

. A ccor di ng t o a compl ai nt O ’ B r i en fi l ed aga i ns tSt ol t
- N i el s en i n C onnect icut Super i or C o u rt in N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , a n d a su b se q u e n t ar ticle in T h e W a ll St r eetJ our nal , O ’ B r i en advi s ed hi s s uper i or s of i l l egal col l us i ve tra d in g p ra c tice s b e tw e e n S to lt-N iels e n a n d tw o o f its compet i t or s , and r es i gned af t ert he C om panyfai l ed t o t ake ac ti o n to reso lve th e p rob lem

. O n rec e iv ing O ’B ri en ’s N o v e m b e r 2 0 0 2 c o m p la in t, S to lt- N ie ls e n h ir e d J o h n N a n n e s , a form er D epu t yA ssi st ant A t t orneyG eneral i n the A nti t rust D i vi s i on att he U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce, t o conductan i nt ernal i nves t i gat i on of pos s i bl e ant i t rus tvi ol at i ons byt he C o m p a n y a n d a d v i s e i tr e g a r d i n g a n y c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y. On Nov e mbe r2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , Nan n e s me twi t h t h e c h a i r man of St ol t
- N i el s en’ s t anker d i vi s i on, Sam uel C ooperm an. Co o p e r ma n i n f

o r me d Na n n e s t h a tO’ Br i e n “ r a i s [ e d ] s o me a n titru st c o n c e rn s” in e a rly2 0 0 2 , an d th a t in re sp o n se S to ltN i el s en r evi s ed i t s ant i t rus tcompl i ance pol i cyand di s s emi nat ed it t o its e m p lo y e e s a n d c o m p e tit o rs. C o o p e rm a n a lso to ld N a n n e s th a t h e b e liev e d a n in ter n a l in v e stig a tio n w o u ld6 demonst r at e thatt he C om panyw as i n vi o lat i on of fe der al ant i t rus t l aw s and aske d N annes aboutt he pos s i bi l i t yof l eni ency f ro m th e D e p a rt m e n t o f

J u s tic e . W i t h C ooperm an’ s perm i s s i on, N annes s poke w i t h an A nt i t ru s tD i vi s i on offi ci al l at ert hatday to i nq uir e abo ut am nest yi f S t olt -N i el sen w ere t o ad m i ti ts vi ol at i ons , and t he G overnm ent i nfor m ed hi m that an i nves t i gat i on had al r eadybegun. Spe c i f i c a l l y , Nan n e s i n q u i r e d a b o u tp o s s i b l e p r o t e c t i on fo r S tolt -N iel sen an d it s o ff icers un d er th e A n ti tru st D ivisi o n ’s C orpor at e Leni ency Pol i cy . U nder t hi s Pol i cy , t he G overnm ent agr ees “not[t o] char g[e] a fi r m cr i m i nal l y for t he act i vi t ybei ng r epor t ed” i f ( i n t he cas e of an appl i cant w ho comes for w ar d aft er an i nves t i gat i on has begun) s even c ondi t i ons ar e met : ( 1) t he appl i cant i s t he fi r s tt o r epor tt he i l l egal act i vi t y ; ( 2) t he G overnm entdoes not , at t he t i m e the appl i cantcomes forw ar d, have e nough i nform at i on t o s us t ai n a convi ct i on; (3) t he appl i cant , “upon i t s di s coveryof the i l l egal act i vi t ybei ng rep o rt ed , too k p rom p t an d ef fe cti v e ac ti o n to term inate it s p art i n t he ac t i vi t y ”; ( 4) t he appl i cant ’ s r epor t i s m ade “ w i t h candor a n d c o m p le ten e ss a n d p ro v id e s f u ll, c o n tin u in g a n d c o m p lete cooper at i on” w i t h t he G overnm ent ’ s i nvest i gat i on; ( 5) t he app l i cant confesses t o il l egal ant i com peti t i ve co n d u c t as a corpor at i on and notm er el yt hr ough ind ivi dual confe s s i ons by co rpo rate o ff

icers; (6 ) th e a p p li ca n t m ak es re sti tuti o n w h ere pos s i bl e; and ( 7) t he G overnm ent d et erm i nes t hatgr ant i ng l eni encyt o t he appl i cantw oul d “notbe unfa i r to o thers. ” The offi cer s and di r ect or s of the corpor at i on w ho as s i s tw i t h t he7 i nves t i gat i on ar e consi der ed fori m m uni t yfr om pr os ecut i on on th e s a m e b a s is a s if

th e yh a d c o m e f

o rw a rd in d iv id u a lly. B. The C ondi t i ona l Leni e nc y A gr e e m e nt T he G overnm enti nformed N annes t hatSt ol t
- N i el s en w oul d not be el i gi bl e foramnestyundert he C orpor at e Leni ency P o lic yif O ’B rie n ’s d e p a rtu re w a s in v o lu n tar ya n d d u e to h is e x p o s u re o f th e C o m p a n y ’s a n titr u s t v io la tio n s . N annes as s ur ed t he G overnm entt hatO ’ B r i en l eftvol unt ar i l yan d det ai l ed the ch an g es to the C o m p an y ’s an ti tru s t p o li cythat w ere i m pl ement ed i n r es pons e t o O ’ B r i en’ s conce r ns . D u ri ng t he en su i ng i nves t i gat i on, N annes l earned thatbetw een 1998 a nd 2001 a St ol t
- N i el s en exe cut i ve, A ndr ew Pi cker i ng, excha nged cu stom er a ll o ca ti o n li sts w ith tw o o f S tolt -N iel sen ’s compet i t or s , pr es um abl yfort he purpos e of a ppor t i oni ng cu stom ers a m o n g the c o m p an ies an d restr ainin g co m p eti ti o n . In Jan u ary2 0 0 3 , P ic k ering ’s su cc esso r, ap p ell ee R icha rd W i ngfi el d, pr ovi ded N annes w i t h fours uch l i s t s , w hi ch confi r m ed thatSt ol t
- N i el s en had i ndeed e ngaged i n i l l egal a n tic o m p e t i t iv e b e h a v io r. N a n n e s p ro m p tlytu rn e d th e se lists overt o t he G overnm ent , w hi ch ent er ed i nt o a C ondi t i onal L eni encyA gr eement( t he “A gree m ent ”) w i t h St ol t
- N i el s en on J anuary15, 2003. U ndert he t erm s o f t he A gr eement , t he G overnm ent agreed “n ot t o b ri ng anycri m i nal pr osecuti on against[S t o ltN iels e n ] f

o r a n ya c t o r o f

f e n se it m a y h a v e c o m m itt e d p rio r to8 t he d at e of thi s [A gr eement ] i n connec t i on w i t h t he ant i compet i t i ve ac t i vi t ybei ng r epor t ed. ” Thi s pr om i s e w as , of cour s e, s ubj ectt o St ol t
- N i el s en’ s s t r ic tcompl i ance w i t h t he afor ement i oned condi t i ons , “[s ] ubj ect t o ver i fi cat i on [bythe G overnm ent ] and s ubj ectt o [St ol t
- N i el s en’ s ] ful l , cont i nui ng and compl et e coope r at i on. ” The A gr eementfur t hers t at ed:

I f t h e An t i t ru s t Di v i s i o n a t a n yt i me det erm i nes t hat[St ol t
- N i el s en] has v io late d th is A g re e m e n t, [i t] sh a ll be vo i d .

. . . Sho ul d the A nt i t rust D i vi s i on r evoke the condi t i onal a c c e p tan c e o f

[ S to lt-N iels e n ] in to t h e Co rp o r a t e Le n i e n c yP r o g r a m, the A nt i t r us t D i vi s i on m ay t her eaf t er i ni t i a t e a cr i m i nal p rose cu ti o n ag ains t [S t ol t
- N i el s en], w i t houtl i m i t at i o n . Shoul d s uch a pr os ecu ti o n b e i ni t i at ed, any document ary orot heri nfor m at i on p ro v id e d b y [ S to lt-N iels e n ], a s w e ll as a n y s t a t e me n t s o r ot her i nfor m at i o n pr ovi ded byany curr entorfor m erdi r ect or , offi cer, o r e m p lo y e e o f

[ S to lt-N iels e n ] to th e A n titru st D iv isio n p u rsu a n t to t hi s A gr eement , m aybe us ed a g a i n s tSt o l t
- Ni e l s e n i n a n ys u ch9 pr os ecut i on. T h e A g re e m e n t als o p ro v id e d that the G ov ernm ent w ou ld n o t p ro se c u te o f

f ice rs a n d d ire c to rs o f th e C o m p a n yw h o “ a d m it th e ir k n o w led g e o f

, o r p a rticip a tio n in , an d f u llya n d tru th f

u lly cooper at e w i t h t he A nt i t rus tD i vi s i on i n i t s i nves t i gat i on of the ant i compet i t i ve ac t i vi t ybei ng r epor t ed. ” Speci fi cal l y , t hat cooper at ion ent ai l ed: ( 1) pr oduci ng al l document s and r ecor ds r eques t ed byt he G overnm ent ; ( 2) bei ng avai l abl e for G o v e rn m e n t in ter v iew s; (3 ) “re sp o n d in g f u llya n d tru th f

u llyto al l i nqui r i es of the [G overnm ent ]

. . . w i t houtfal s el yi m pl i cat i ng anyper s on ori nt ent i o n all yw i t hhol di ng anyi nfor m at i on”; ( 4) vol unt ar i l ypr ovi di ng anyi nf o rm at i on orm at er i al s notr eques t ed byt he G overnm entt hatw er e nonethel es s rel evantt o t he i nves ti g ati on; and ( 5) t es t i fy i ng underoath w hen as ked byt he G overnm ent
. I tconcl uded w i t h a s tandar d i nt egr at i on cl aus e: “Thi s l et t ercons t i tut es t he ent i r e agr eementbetw een the [ p a r t i e s ] , a n d s u p e r s e d e s a l l p r i o ru n d e r s t a n d i n g s , i f a n y, w h e th e r o ra l o r w ri tte n , re la tin g to th e s u b je c t m a tte r h e re in .” U sin g th e in f

o rm a tio n p ro v id e d b yS to lt-N iels e n a n d its exec ut i ves ( i ncl udi ng W i ngfi el d) , t he G overnm ents ecur ed g u iltyp lea s f

ro m S to lt-N iels e n ’s c o -c o n sp ira to rs, re su lti n g in p ri s on s ent ence s fori ndi vi dual exec ut i ves att hos e compani es and fi nes t ot al i ng $62 m i l l i on.10 C . The G ov e r nm e nt Ter m i nat e s t he A gr e e m e nt I n t he w eeks fol l ow i ng exec ut i on of t he A gr eement , t he G o v ern m en t’s inv esti g ati o n rev ea led th at S tolt -N iel sen ’s par t i ci pat i on i n t he conspi r acy per s i s t ed for s ever al m ont hs aft er O ’ B r i en r ai s ed hi s concerns t o C ooperm an i n ear l y2002. T he G o v e rn m e n t co n c lu d e d th a t S to lt-N iels e n , a n d W in g f ield in p arti cu la r, c o n ti n u ed to co ll u d e u n law fu ll yw ith co m p eti tors unt i l N ovember2002. B as ed on thi s inf o rm at i on, t he G overnm enti nform ed N annes o n A pr i l 8, 2003 t hati tw as s u s p e n d i n g St o l t
- Ni e l s e n’ s obl i gat i ons undert he A gr eementand co n s i d e r i n g wi t h d r a wi n g t h e g r a n to f c o n d i t i o n a l l e n i e n cy ent i r el ybeca us e the C om panydi d nott ake “ pr om ptand eff ect i ve ac t i on t o t erm i nat e i t s par ti n t he ant i compet i t i ve act i vi t ybei ng r epor t ed upon di s coveryof t h e act i vi t y , ” as requi red byt he A greem ent. O ne o f W i ng fi el d’s su b o rdinat es, B j or n J ans en, t hen admi t t ed thatthe ant i compet i t i ve agr eement b e tw e e n S to lt-N iels e n a n d its c o m p e tito r s w a s s til l in p lac e in t he fa l l o f 2002, des pi t e havi ng t ol d N annes t hats uch conduc t ce ase d in M arc h 2 0 0 2 o n ce the C o m p an ylearn ed o f O ’B ri en ’s a l l e g a t i o n s a n d i s s u e d i t s n e w a n t i t ru s tp o l i c y. In Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , the G o v e rn m e n t co n c lu d e d th a t W in g f ield had notful fi l l ed hi s obl i gat i ons under t he A gr eementbeca us e he never i nfor m ed t he G over n me n t t h a t h i s u n l a wful com m un i cat i on s w i t h St olt -N i el sen’s com peti t ors di d n ot ceas e i n M arch 20 02 w hen S t olt -N i el sen i ssued i t s new anti t rust p o licy . O n Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , th e G o v e rn m e n t ch a rg e d W in g f ieldA l t hough t he G overnm ent“cha r ged” W ing fi el d by 1 c rim in a l co m p lain t in Ju n e 2 0 0 3 , itc o u ld n o t p r o se c u te h im w i t h o u ta n i n d i c t me n t
. Se e 1 Cha r l e s Al a n W r i g h t , Fed. Pr act i ce & Pr ocedur e § 121, at 518 ( 3d ed. 1999) ( “A l t hough a c rim in a l p ro c e e d in g m a y b e in stitu ted b ya c o m p lain t, th is o n ly perm i t s i s s uance of a w arr ant for t he arr es tof the off ender , and he ca nnotbe tr i ed unl es s an ind ict m entori nfor m at i on, as t he c a s e m a yre q u ir e , is b ro u g h t a g a in s t h im .” ). 11 bycr i m i nal compl ai ntw i t h vi ol at i ng t h e S h erm an A ct , 15 U
. S. C

. § 1. T he G overnm entw i t hdr ew i t s gr antof condi t i onal l eni encyt o St ol t
- N i el s en on M ar ch 2, 2004, and announce d t hat i ti nt ended t o i ndi ctt he C om panyand W i ngfi el d forvi ol at i ons o f th e S h e rm a n A c t. 1
D . D i s t ri ct C ourt P roce edi ngs S h o rt lyb ef

o re the G o v ern m en t r ev o k ed S tolt -N iel sen ’s con d i t i onal l eni ency , t he C om panyand W i ngfi el d fi l ed co m p lai n ts i n the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a s eeki ng enfor cementof the A gr eement and an injun ct i on pr event i ng t he G overnm entfr om fi l i ng i ndi ctm ent s agai ns tt hem. T he G overnm ent agr eed t o pos tpone it s ind ict m en ts of

b o th p artie s p en d ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s c o n s id e ra tio n o f

th e c o m p la in ts
. T h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tb i f

u r c a t e d th e p r o c e e d i n g s i n t o t wo p h a se s. In P h a se O n e , the C o u rt c o n sid e re d w h e th e r S to lt-12 N i el s en’ s al l eged c onduct betw een M ar ch and N ovember2002 v io la t e d t h e te rm s o f

th e A g re e m e n t. If

so , P h a se T w o w o u ld d e te rm in e w h e th e r t h e c o n d u c t a c tu a lly o c c u rr e d

. D ur i ng t he Phas e O ne proc eedi ngs , t he D i s t r i ctC our tcons ol i dat ed cons i der at i on of Stolt

- N i el s en’ s and W i ngfi el d’ s r eques t s for p reli m inaryinjun cti o n s w ith the tri al on the m erit s, an d h e ard t esti m o nyfr om N annes and J ames G r i ffi n, t he A s s i s t ant A t t or ney G ener al i n char ge of the A nt i t rus tD i vi s i on att he D e p a rt m e n t o f

J u s tic e . In Ja n u a ry 2 0 0 5 , th e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted ju d g m e n t in favor of S t ol t
- N i el s en and W i ngfi el d and perm anent l yenj oi ned t he G overnm entfr om i ndi ct i ng ei t her of t hem forvi ol at i ons of t he S herm an A ct
. See St ol t
- N i el s en S. A

. v. U ni t ed St at es , 352 F
. S u p p . 2 d 5 5 3 (E .D
. P a . 2 0 0 5 ). T he C our t concl uded t hatt he G o v e r n me n tc o u l d n o tu n i l a t e r a l l yr e s c i n d t h e Agr e ement w i t houta j udi ci al det erm i n at i on t hatSt ol t
- N i el s en and W i ngfi el d br eac hed i t , an i s s ue appr opr i at e forcons i der at i on befor e i ndi ctm ent “bec aus e i f an i ndi ctm entw er e l at er det erm i ned t o have be en w r ongful l ys ecur ed, it w oul d be t oo l at e t o p rev ent t he i r r epar abl e cons equenc es . ” I d. at560. T he C o u r tf u r t h e rf o u n d t h a tt h e A g r e e m e n td i d n o ts p e c i f y a d isco v eryd ate a n d in s tea d g ran ted a m n estyfo r ac ti v ityb ef o re Ja n u a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , the d a te o n w h ich it w a s s ig n e d . In d e e d , it found t hat “the dat e w hen [St ol t
- N i el s en] ended i t s par t i ci pat i on [i n t he co n sp ir acy ] w as nevercl ear l yes t abl i s hed, ” i d. at562 n. 10, and ther efor e, i n l i ghtof the A gr eem en t ’ s i nt egr at i on c lau se , “D O J, e sp e c iallyb e c a u se it d r a f te d th e a g re e m e n t,13 cannotdepend upon a t aci tunder s t andi ng of w h at i tcont ends w as m eant[t o be t he di s covery dat e] butw as notm emori al i zed i n t he i nt egr at ed agr eement
. ” I d. at 562. T he C our tconcl uded:

T he agr eementi m m uni zes [St ol t
- N i el s en] fr om pr os ecut i on foract i vi t ypr i ort o J anuary15, 2003. N o w D O J cont ends t he act i vi t yhad t o have s t opped atan ear l i erunsp eci fi ed dat e thati s not se t f o rth in th e a g re e m e n t. H a d it wa n t e d t o f

i x t h e d a t e s o m e t i me b e f o r e Ja n u a ry1 5 , 2 0 0 3 , itc o u ld have r epl ace d t he w or ds “t o t he d ate of thi s l et t er ” w i t h t he ea r l i er dat e i tnow cont ends t he part i es cont empl at ed.

. . . [T he G ov ernm ent’ s] goal s [i n concl udi ng t he Agr e ement w i t h St ol t
- N i el s en] w er e t o pur s ue [S tolt -N iel sen ’s ] c o -co n sp ir ators and br eak up the cons pi r acy . I tgot w hati th a d b a r g a i n e d f o ri n t he agr eement
. . . . N ow t hati thas r ece i ved the bene fi t of t he bar gai n, D O J cannot pr os ecut e t he part yt hat i ncri m i nated itse lf

w h e n itT he D i s t r i ctC our t had j ur i s di ct i on overt hi s cas e under 2 28 U

. S. C

. § 1331, as i ti s a ci vi l act i on ar i s i ng under t he l aw s of t h e U n ite d S ta te s . O u r j u ri s d ic tio n a ri s e s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1291, s i nce t he G overnm ent fi l ed a t i m el y not i ce of appe al fr om a f in a l d e c isio n o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.

14 d e liv e re d th e e v id e n c e D O J u se d to accom pli sh i t s goals

. I d.
E . A ppeal O n ap peal , t he G overnm entcont ends t hatt he D i s t r i ct C o u rterr ed in tw o respect s. F i rs t , i targues t hat federal c o u rts l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o enj oi n t he exe cut i ve br anch fro m fi l i ng an in d ic tm e n t. S e c o n d , ita ss e rts th a t th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in hol di ng t hatSt ol t
- N i el s en’ s and W i ngfi el d’ s act i ons betw een M ar ch and N ovember2002 di d notvi ol at e the term s of the A g ree m en t. F o r th e re aso n s tha t fo ll o w , the D istri ct C o u rt ’s j udgm enti s r ever s ed and t he ca s e r emanded t o t hatC our ts o t hat i tm aydis m i ss the ap pell ees’ com plai nts
. 2
II. W e r evi ew a D i s t r i ctC o u rt ’s gr antordeni al of a perm anenti nj unct i on forabus e of di s cre t i on, U ni t ed St at es v. B ell , 4 1 4 F
. 3 d 4 7 4 , 4 7 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ), b u t exe rc is e p lena ry15 revi ew ov er the D i stri c t C o urt ’s un derl y i ng l egal conclusi on s. Fr eethoughtSoc’ yof G r eat er Phi l a. v. C hes t erC ount y , 334 F. 3d 247, 255–56 ( 3d C i r . 2003)

. A D i s t r i ct C o ur t ’ s det erm i nat i on w hethera coope r at i on agr eementhas been br ea ch ed i s a l egal co n clus ion

. U n it ed S tat es v . B aird, 2 1 8 F
. 3 d 2 2 1 , 2 2 9 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 )

. Al l f

i n d i n g s o f f

a c t a r e r e v i e wed f

o r c l e a r e r r or . See B el l , 4 1 4 F. 3 d a t 4 7 8 ( r e v i e wi n g f i n d i n g s o f f

a c t r e l a t e d t o a perm anent injunct i on forcl earerr or ) ; B ai r d, 218 F. 3d at229 ( r evi ew i ng fi ndi ngs of fa ctr el ated t o a coope r at i on agr eement fo r clear e rror).
III . T he Supr eme C ou rt has obs erved thatt he exe cut i ve br an ch “h as e x clus ive a u tho ri tyan d ab so lute d is cr et i on t o deci de w he t he rt o p r os e c ut e a c a s e , ” U ni t e d St a t e s v. N i xo n, 41 8 U. S. 683, 693 ( 1974) , an d t he G overnm entt her efor e ar gues t hat cour t s l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o enj oi n a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. See U ni t ed St at es v . C o x, 342 F. 2d 167, 171 ( 5t h C i r . 1965) ( en banc) ( “I tfol l ow s , as an i nci dentof the cons t i tut i onal s epar at i on of po w er s , t hatt he court s ar e nott o i nt er fer e w i t h the fr ee exer ci s e of the di s cr et i onarypow er s of the att or ney s o f t he U n ite d S ta te s in th e irc o n tr o l o v e r c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n s .” ).
T h ere ar e ex ce p ti o n s to this ge n era l ru le, h o w ev er, u s u a l l yt o a v o i d a c h i l l i n g e f f e c t o n F i r s tAm e n d me n tr i g h t s . As th e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s re c o g n iz e d ,16 [a ] crim inal p rose cu ti o n u n d er a s t at ut e re gul a t i n g e x p r es s i on us ual l yi nvol ves i mpo n d e r a b l e s a nd cont i ngenci es t hatt hemsel ves m ay i nh i bitt he fu l l exerci se o f F i rs t A m endmentfr eedoms.

. . . T he a s s u mpt i o n t h a td e f

e n s e o f a c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n w ill g e n e ra lly as s u r e a mpl e v i ndi cat i on of cons t i tut i onal ri ght s i s unfounded i n s uch ca s es . . . . [W ]e have not t houghtt hatt he i m pr obabi l ityof s ucce s s ful pr os ecut i on m akes t he cas e di ffe r ent
. T he chi l l i ng effect u po n the exerci se of F i rs t A m endmentr i ght s m ayder i v e f r om t he f ac t of the p rose cut i on, u n a f f e c ted b yth e p r o sp e c ts o f its s u c c e s s o r f

a ilu re . D om brow ski v. P fi st er, 38 0 U
. S

. 47 9, 48 6– 87 (1965 ); see al so A s hcr oftv. A C L U , 542 U
. S. 656, 670–71 ( 2004) ( uphol di ng p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n a g ai nstcri m i nal enforc e m e n t o f th e C h ild O nl i ne Pr ot ect i o n Actb e caus e, i nt eral i a, “[w ] her e a pr os ecut i on is a lik e lyp o ss ib ili ty , y e t o n ly a n a f f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se is avai l abl e, s peake r s m ays el f- cens orr athert han r i s k t he per i l s of tr ial ”).17 Iti s als o w el l est abli shed thatt he G ov ernm ent m ust a d h e re stric tly to th e ter m s o f a g re e m e n ts m a d e w ith d e f e n d a n ts

— in c lu d in g p lea , co o p e ra tio n , an d im m u n ity a g re e m e n ts

— to t he ext entt he agr eement s r equi r e def endant s t o s acr i fi ce cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . See, e. g. , Sant obel l o v. N ew Y or k, 404 U
. S. 257, 262 ( 1971 ); U ni t ed St at es v. H odge, 412 F. 3d 479, 485 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( “The governm entm us tadher e s t r i ct l yt o t he t erm s o f the ba rgai ns i tstri kes w i t h d efen dan t s. B ecause defe ndant s ent er i ng pl eas fo rfe i ta numberof cons t i tut i onal ri gh t s, cou rt s ar e com pell ed to scruti nize cl osel yt he p rom i se m ade byt he gov ern m enti n or dert o det erm i ne w hetheri thas been pe r form ed. ” ( ci t at i on and i n terna l quot at i on m arks o m itte d ))

. T her efor e, al t hough t he G overnm enti s cert ai nl ycorr ect th a t th e re is no f

re e -ra n g in g ju risd ictio n o n th e p a rt o f c o u rts to enj oi n cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , t hat author i t y does exi s ti n l i m i t ed s i tuat i ons , t ypi cal l yt hos e w her e the mer e thr eatof pr os ecut i on w ou l d inhi bitt he ex erci se o f F ir stA m end m ent fr eedo m s. Feder al c o u r t s al s o have j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der , and hol d t he G o v e rn m e n t to , the ter m s o f a g re e m e n ts it m a k e s w ith defe ndant s . T he ques t i on t hus becomes w hether , i n t hos e ca s es notconce r ni ng Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s , t he author i t yt o enfor ce cooper at i on ori m m uni ty ag ree m ent s m aybe exe r ci s ed pr ei ndi ctm enti n t he form of an i nj unct i on. T he D i s t r i ctC our treli ed on a Seventh C i r cui tcas e, U ni t ed St at es v. M ey er , 157 F. 3d 1067 ( 7t h C i r . 1998) , asI n k ee pi ng w i t h t he ca s e l aw di s cus s ed bel ow , t he 3 Seventh C i r cui tr eac hed thi s concl us i on des pi t e the fa ct t hatt he im m u n itya g re e m e n t b e f o re it state d th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t w o u ld n o t “ c h a rg e ” th e d e f

e n d a n t. M e y e r, 1 5 7 F .3 d a t 1 0 7 7
.

18 author i t yforconduct i ng a pre- i ndi ctm entr evi ew of the A gr eementbefor e us . See St ol t
- N i el s en, 352 F. S u pp. 2d at 560–61. I n M ey er , t he Seventh C i r cui ts t at ed, i n di ct a, t hat“the pr efe r r ed pr ocedur e, abs entexi gent ci r cumst ance s , w oul d be for t he governm entt o s eek r el i ef f r om i t s obl i gat i ons undert he i m m uni t yagr eementpr i ort o i ndi ctm ent
. Si nce the governm ent is r eq u ired to o b tai n a jud ici al de term ination o f a d ef en d an t’ s br eac h pr i ort o t r i al , i ti s but a de mi ni m i s i nconveni ence fort he governm ent t o s ecur e t hatdet erm i nat i on pr e- i ndi ctm ent
. ” 157 F .3 d a t 1 0 7 7
. W e have no quarr el w i t h t he Seventh C i r cui t’ s obs ervat i on t hat , i n m anyci r cumst ance s , a pr e- i ndi ctm ent d e ter m in a tio n o f

th e p a r ties ’ o b lig a tio n s u n d e r a n im m u n ity a g r e e me n two u l d b e a g o o d i d e a . As we e x p l a i n b e l o w, how ever , fede r al cour t s ( i ncl udi ng the S eventh C i r cui t ) agr ee t hat a pr e- i ndi ctm ent det erm i nat i on i s not r equi r ed. Indee d, n o tw ith s ta n d in g its d ic ta re g a rd in g th e “ p re f e rr e d p ro c e d u re ,” th e M e y e r C o u rt h e ld th e d e f e n d a n t w a s c o n stitu tio n a lly “ent i t l ed t o a j udi ci al det erm i nat i on of hi s br eac h befor e bei ng d e p riv e d o f

h is in ter e st in th e e n f o rc e m e n t o f

a n im m u n ity agr eement , ” and thatt hi s “i nt er es t ” w as i n notbei ng convi ct ed, rathe r th an n o t bein g ind ict ed

. Id. at 10 7 6

– 7 7
. A s th e C o u rt 319 n o ted, “apost- ind ict m en t evid en ti aryh ea ri n g o n the d ef en d an t’ s al l eged br eac h w as s uffi ci ent t o s at i s fy due pr oces s . ” I d. at1076 (cit ing U n it ed S tat es v. V erru sio, 8 0 3 F
. 2 d 8 8 5 , 8 8 9 (7t h C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ))

. O th e r im m u n itya g re e m e n ts th a t h a v e p ro m ise d n o t to cha r g e o ro t h e r wi s e c r i mi n a l l yp r o s e c u t e a d e f e n d a n t , l i k e t he a g re e m e n t at iss u e in th is c a se , h a v e lik e w ise b e e n c o n stru e d to pr ot ect t he defe ndantagai ns tconvi ct i on r athert han i ndi ctm ent and tr i al

. See, e. g. , H ei ke v. U ni t ed St at es , 217 U

. S. 4 2 3 , 431 ( 1910) ( cons t rui ng t he Sher m an A ct ’ s i m m uni typr ovi s i on, w h ic h p ro te c te d a te s t i f yi n g w itn e s s f

ro m b e in g “ p ro s e c u te d ,” s ee A ctof Feb. 25, 1903, ch. 7 55, § 1, 32 St at
. 854, 904 ( r epea l ed 1970) , “not

. . . t o s ecur e t o a per s on m aki ng s uch a pl ea i m m uni t yfr om pr os ecut i on, butt o pr ovi de hi m w i t h a shi el d ag ai nstsuccessful prosecuti on , avail able t o h im as a d e f e n se ” ); U n ited S tate s v . B a iley , 3 4 F .3 d 6 8 3 , 6 9 0

– 9 1 (8 th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng t hatan agr eement“nott o pr os ecut e” pr ot ect ed the def

endantfr om “the inhe r entr i s k of convi ct i on an d p u n ishm en t as a res u lto f th e tri al, n o t th e tria l i tsel f” ); U n ited S tate s v . B ird , 7 0 9 F .2 d 3 8 8 , 3 9 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (“ W h ile t he agr eementi s phr as ed i n t erm s of nonpros ecut i on, i t s es s ence i s a pr om i s e of i m m uni t y . [T h e def endant ’ s ] i m m uni t yfr om puni s hm entw i l l not be l os ts i m pl ybeca us e s he i s for ced t o s t and tr ia l.” ).W e do notaddr es s i n t hi s opi ni on t hos e ci r cumst ance s 4 i n w hi ch equi t y m i ght s erve t o enj oi n an ul t r a vi r es pr os ecut i on br oughti n bad fa i t h. T he Su p rem e C our thas onl yappr oved fede r al i nj unct i ons agai ns ts t at e cr i m inal pr ocee di ngs on t hat bas i s . Se e You n g e rv . Harr i s , 4 0 1 U. S. 3 7 , 5 5 ( 1 9 7 1 ) ( n ot i ng t hat , al t ho u g h “the pos s i bl e uncons t i tut i onal i t yof a s t atut e ‘ on i t s face’ does no t i n i t sel f j ust i fy an i njunct i on against[a st at e’s ] g o o d -fa ith att em p ts t o en fo rce it , ” a “sh o w ing o f b ad fa ith [o r] harass m ent” m ig ht “j ust i fyfede ral i nterven t i on ”); see al so Howar d W
. Br i l l , Eq u i t ya n d t h e Cr i mi n a l La w, 2 0 0 0 Ar k

. L. N ot es 1, 3

- 4 ( not i ng t hats t at e court s have s om et i m es us ed i njunct i o n s to prevent bad-fai t h p rosecut i on s, such as t ho se br oughts ol el y to “har as s and t o r et al i at e fort he exe r ci s e of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , ” orw her e the pros ecut or char ges conduct th a t is n o t il leg a l). A s o u r p re c e d e n t m a k e s c lea r, h o w e v e r, in t he abs ence of a s t at e pr os ecut i on, fede ral

- s t at e abs t ent i on d o c trin e is irre lev a n t an d Y o u n g e r d o e s n o t ap p ly . P ik -A -S tate P a., Inc
. v . R en o , 7 6 F
. 3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 3 0 0 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ). M o reo v er, 20 T hi s di s t i nct i on i s gr ounded i n t he under s t andi ng t hat sim p lyb e in g in d ict e d a n d f o rc e d to sta n d trial is n o t g e n e ra lly an i nj ur yfor co ns t i tut i onal purpos es buti s r ather“one of t he painful obl i gati on s o f c i t i z enship. ” C ob bledi ck v

. U nit ed S t at es, 309 U

. S. 323, 325 ( 1940) ; s ee D eave r v. Seym our , 822 F. 2d 66, 69 ( D
. C

. C i r . 1987) ( “A l t hough i t i s s ur el y t rue t hat an i nnocent per s on m ays uffe rgr eatharm t o hi s r eput at i on and pr oper t yby b e in g e rro n e o u s ly a c c u se d o f a c rim e , all c iti z e n s m u st s u b m it t o a cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on br oughti n good fai t h s o t hatl ar ger s oci et al i nt er es t s m aybe pr es erved. ”)

. A s t he D i s t r i ctof 4e v e n if th e p rin c ip les o f

Y o u n g e r o r th e w ill in g n e s s o f c e rta in s t at e court s t o ent er t ai n i nj unct i ons agai ns tbad- fa it h o ri l l egal p r o s e c u t i o n s c o u l d b e a p p l i e d t o a f e d e r a l p r o s e c u t i o n , we per cei ve no bad fai t h on t he par t of the G overnm enti n t hi s cas e; ra th e r , th e p a rties a re e n g a g e d m e re lyin a g o o d -f a ith d isp u te o v e r t h e m e a n in g o f

th e A g re e m e n t. W e n o te th a t th e D istric t C o u rt’s f in d in g th a t S to lt- 5 N i el s en and W i ngfiel d w oul d be i r r epar abl yharm ed byan i ndi ctm entdoes not br i ng t hi s cas e w i t hi n t he ambi tof the ca s es i n w hi ch i nj unct i ons aga inst i ndi ctm entand tr i al have be en appr oved. E ven as s um i ng t hati r r epar abl e harm i s a fa ct ort hat m aypr oper l ybe cons i der ed i n deci di ng upon a p erm anent( as o p p o s e d t o p r e l i mi n a r y ) i n j u n c t i o n — wh i c h i s a ma t t e r o f s o me t ens i on i n ourcas e l aw , compar e C hao v. R ot herm el , 327 F. 3d 223, 228 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( s t at i ng t hata perm anenti nj unct i on m ay be gr ant ed “w her e t he m ovi ng par t y has demonstr at ed that : ( 1) th e e x e rc ise o f ju risd ictio n is a p p ro p ria te; (2 ) th e m o v in g p a rty has actual l ys ucce eded on the merit s of i t s cl ai m ; and ( 3) t he 21 C ol um bi a C i r cui tno ted i n D eave r , i n t he abs ence of an uncons t i tut i onal chi l l i ng eff ect on Fi r s tA m endmentr i ght s , t he a d v e rs a ry s ys te m “ a f

f o rd [ s ] d e f

e n d a n ts , a f

te r i n d ic tm e n t, a fede r al forum i n w hi ch t o as s er t t hei rdefe ns es — i ncl udi ng tho se b ase d o n the C o n sti tuti o n . B ec au se th ese d ef en d an ts are al r eadyguar ant eed a cce s s t o a fe der al cour t , i ti s nots urpr i s i ng t hats ubj ect s of fe der al i nves t i gat i on have n evergai ned i nj unct i ve r el i ef a gai ns tfede r al pr os ecut or s . ” 822 F. 2d at 69–70. 5‘ bal ance of equi t i es ’ favor s gr ant ing i nj unct i ve r el i ef” ) , and A C L U of N

. J
. v. B l ack H or s e Pi ke R eg’ l B d. of Educ. , 84 F. 3d 1 4 7 1 , 1 4 7 7 n n .2

– 3 ( 3 d C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (e n b a n c ) (n o tin g th a t a preli m i naryi nj unct i on r equi r es cons i der at i on of, i nt eral i a, i r r epar abl e i nj ur y , w hi l e a perm anent i nj unct i on m er el yr equi r es cons i de r a t i o n o f

whe th er“the pl ai nt i ff ha s actual l ys ucce eded on th e m e rits,” a n d , if s o , w h e th e r a n in ju n c tio n is a n “ a p p ro p ria te r emedy ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) , w i t h Shields v. Z u cc arini, 2 5 4 F
. 3 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 2 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) (st ati n g that a c o u rt m ay gr ant a perm anenti nj unct i on i f i tfi nds , i nt eral i a, t hat“the m ovi ng par t yw i l l be i r r epar abl yi nj ur ed byt he deni al of i nj unct i ve r el i ef” ( ci t i n g B la ck H or s e Pi ke, 84 F. 3d at1477 nn. 2–3) ) — w e not e that , as s t at ed above , ot her cour t s have not acc ept ed the ar gum ent t hat t he unpl eas antnes s of an i ndi ctm ent br oughti n good fai t h cons t i tut es an i nj ur yt hatm ay be r emedi ed bya pr e- i ndi ctm enti nj unct i on, and nei t herhave w e. 22 A lth o u g h th is in terp re tatio n o f a g re e m e n ts “ n o t to pr os ecut e” mays eem count er i ntui ti v e, i tcomport s w i t h t he fede r al cour t s ’ gener al r el uct ance t o r ecogni ze a r i ghtnott o be i ndi ct ed ort r i ed i n t he abse nce of an expr es s cons t i tut i onal ( or p erh a p s statu tory ) co m m an d

. In th e c o n text o f in terl o cu tory a p p e a ls c h a llen g in g th e G o v e rn m e n t’s a u th o rityto p ro c e e d w ith a pr os ecut i on, forexampl e, t he Supr eme C o ur thas al l ow ed t hos e appe al s onl y i n very l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s . Forexampl e, t he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e, s ee U
. S. C ons t
. amend. V ( “[N ] or s hal l anyper s on be s ubj ectfort he s ame offens e t o be tw i ce put in jeo p ard yo f lif

e o r li m b

. . . . ”), pro tects i n terests th at are “w hol l yunr el at ed t o t he pr opr i etyof anys u b sequent23 convi ct i on, ” i n t hat i tpr ovi des a “gua r ant ee a gai ns tbei ng t w i ce putt o t r i al for t he s ame offens e. ” A bneyv. U ni t ed St at es , 431 U
. S. 651, 66 1 ( 1 9 77) ( emphasi s added)

. B eca us e the pr ohi bi t i on a g a in st d o u b le jeo p a rd ya f f o rd s a d e f

e n d a n t th e rig h t to
“ c o n tes t[ ] th e v e ry a u th o rity o f th e G o v e rn m e n t to h a le h im in to cour tt o fac e tr i al on t he char ge agai ns t hi m , ” i tnece s s i t at es an ex ce p ti o n to the “f

irm co n g ressi onal po li cyag ains t i n terl o cu tory or ‘ pi ece m eal ’ appea l s . ” I d. at 656, 659. L i kew i s e, t he Speec h and D ebat e C l aus e, s ee U
. S. C ons t
. ar t
. I , § 6, cl

. 1 ( “[F] orany sp e e c h o r d e b a te in e ith e r H o u se , [m e m b e rs o f C o n g re ss ] sh a ll n o t b e q u e stio n e d in a n yo th e r P lac e .”), h a s b e e n c o n stru e d “ to pr ot ectC ongr es s m en n o t onl yfr om t he cons equenc es of l i t i gat i on’ s r es ul t s butal s o fr om t he bur den of de fendi ng t hemsel ves , ” thus al l ow i ng i nt er l ocut or yap p e a l s f r o m deni al s of cl ai m s of i m m uni t yundert hatC l aus e. H el s t os ki v. M eanor , 442 U
. S

. 5 0 0 , 5 0 8 (19 7 9 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). Ou rc a s e i s n o ta n i n t e r l o c u t o r ya p p e a l , b u tt h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s cas es i n t hat fi el d ar e i ns t ruct i ve beca us e t heyr ei nfor ce t he narr ow nes s of a defenda nt ’ s abi l i t yt o chal l enge the G ov ern m ent ’ s deci s i on t o pur s ue a pr os ecut i on. J us tas t he a u t h o r i t yt o e n

j o i n c r i mi n a l e n f

o r c e me n to f

a l a w r e gul at i ng s peec h i s gr ounded i n t he overr i di ng need t o avoi d a chi l l i ng eff ecton t he e x erc ise of cor e cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , s o t oo does t he r i ghtnott o be pr os ecut ed r ecogni zed i n A bney and H el s t os ki s t e m f r o m e x p r e s s t e x tu a l c o mma n d s i n t h e Con s t i tu t i o n t hat pr ohi bi tanyi nt er fer ence w i t h t he r i ght s agai ns tdoubl e j eopar dy or of m ember s of C ongr es s t o s peak f r eel yi n l egi s l at i ve s es s i on.24 I n ot hercont ext s , how ever , cour t s have r efus ed t o al l ow i nt er l ocut or yappea l s t o s t op pr os ecut ion s. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. H ol l yw ood M ot orC arC o. , 458 U

. S. 263, 268 ( 1982) ( per cur i am) ( hol di ng t hat a vi ndi ct i ve pr os ecut i on cl ai m m ay not be r a i s e d i n a n i n t e r l o c u t o r ya p p e a l t o s t o p a n o n g oi ng pr os ecut i on, butr atherm ayonl ybe r ai s ed a ft ert he def endant has been c onvi ct ed, beca us e “r ever s al of t h e convi ct i on and

. . . th e p ro v isio n o f a n e w trial f re e o f p re ju d icia l er ro r n o rm a lly ar e ade quat e means of vi ndi cat i ng t he cons t i tut i onal r i ght s of the acc u s e d ” ) ; Pa r rv . Uni t e d St a t e s , 3 5 1 U. S. 5 1 3 , 5 1 9 ( 1 956) (ho ld in g that the m ere fa ct a d ef en d an t w o u ld h av e to “ h az ard a tri al” in o n e v en u e b ef o re c h all en g ing the D istri ct C o u rt ’s or dert r ans ferri ng hi s cas e fr om a di ffe r entvenue di d not w a rr a n t a n in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l) ; c f. U n ite d S ta te s v . P .H .E ., In c ., 9 6 5 F .2 d 8 4 8 , 8 5 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (n o tin g th a t, i n compar i ng t he vi ndi ct i ve pr os ecut i o n c l a i m i n Hol l ywoo d M ot or C ar t o a vindi ct i ve prosecut i on cl ai m based on the def end ants ’ di s s emi nat i on of cons t i tut i o n a l l ypr ot ect ed s peec h, “[t ] he w r ong a lleg e d is s im ilar, b u t th e r ig h t so u g h t to b e v in d ica ted is n o t” b ec au se th e “ p roc ed u ral rule [a t i ssu e i n H o ll yw o o d M o tor C ar] rai ses concerns di st i nct from and l ess pr essi ng t han t he co urt s’ obl i gat i on t o pr ot ectt he Fi r s tA m endm ent r i ghtnott o be s ubj ect ed t o a pre t extual pr os ecut i on”)

. I ndeed, w hen a di s t r i ct co u rtr ej ect s pr i ort o t r i al a def endant ’ s cont ent i on t hatan i m m uni t yagr eementbar s hi s convi ct i on, t he def endantm aynot avai l hi m s el f of a n i nt er l ocut or yappea l chal l engi ng t hat deci s i on; r ather , “the ava i l abi l i t y o f di s m i s s al aft erfi nal j udgm entw i l l adequa t el ypr ot ectand s ecur e fort he def endantI n ourvi ew , t he pr e- t r i al det erm i nat i on appr oved byt he 6 Seventh C i r cui t i n M ey er does not confl i ct w i t h t he obs ervat i ons o f th e F if th a n d E ig hth C irc u its th a t n o n -p ro se c u tio n a g re e m e n ts of t he s or t i nvol ved i n t hi s cas e pr ot ect agai ns t t he r i sk of con v ict i on and puni s hm ent , nott r i al

. See B ai l ey , 34 F. 3d at 6 9 1 ; B ir d , 7 0 9 F
. 2 d at 39 2

. F o r on e thin g , B ail eya n d B ir d co n ce rne d att e m p ted interl o cu toryap p ea ls from d istri ct co u rt d e n ials o f

p o st-in d ictm e n t cla im s th a t im m u n itya g re e m e n ts b a r r e d c o n v i c t i o n , a n d a s s u c h wer e n o t c o n c e r n e d wi t h t he t i m i ng of t he cl ai m s i n t he di s t r i ctcour t
. I n anyevent , i ti s not i n t he i nt er es tof def

endant s ort he G overnm en t, o n ce an ind ict m en t has b ee n issue d , to p roc ee d w ith a tri al be fo re det erm i ni ng w hether an i m m uni t y agr eement bars convi ct i on. W e ther efor e agr ee w i t h t he Seventh C i r cui tt hata pr e- t r i al hear i ng i s appr opr i at e i n t hes e ci r cumst ance s . W e note, how ever , t hatt hi s t i m i ng i s notes s ent i al , and a de fenda ntm ay ra is e a n im m u n ity a g re e m e n t a s a d e f e n s e d u ri n g th e tr ia l. 25 t h e bene fi tof hi s bar gai n undert he nonpr os ecut i on agr eement i f he i s ent i t l ed t o i t
. ” B ai l ey , 34 F. 3d at 691; s ee Bi r d, 709 F. 2d at 39 2 (sam e).
H er e, St ol t
- N i el s en and W i ngfi el d m ayi nt erpos e the A gr eement( as a def

ens e t o convi cti o n) i n a pr e- t r i al m ot i on. See, e. g. , M ey er , 157 F. 3d at1077 ( “I n acco rda n ce w i t h due pr oces s , [the def

endant ] w as ent i t l ed t o a j udi ci al det erm i nat i on t hathe had br eac hed the agr eementbefor e bei ng s ubj ect ed t o t he risk o f c o n v ictio n . T h e d istric t co u rt’s p re tr ia l [ b u t p o stin d ict m en t] ev iden ti aryh ea ri n g sati sfied this requ ir em en t. ”). 626 B utt hei rcont ent i on t hat t he i m m uni t y t heypurpor t edl yr ece i ved under t he A gr eement pr ecl udes an i ndi ctm enti n t he fi r s tpl ace i s bel i ed by pr ece dent , and w e s ee no compel l i ng r eas on t o r eac h a d if f e re n t r e s u lt in th is c a s e .

* * * * * “[A ] s uit in eq u it ydoes notl i e w her e ther e i s a pl ai n, adequa t e and c om pl et e r emedyatl aw . . . [thati s ] as compl et e, p ra c tic a l an d e f

f ic ie n t as th a t w h ic h e q u ity c o u ld a f f o rd .” T e rra c e v . T h o m p so n , 2 6 3 U .S . 1 9 7 , 2 1 4 (1 9 2 3 ). H e re , S to ltN i el s en and W i ngfi el d have a pr act i cal and ef fi ci ent— and i nd eed com plet e

— l egal r em edyavail able t o them , i

. e. , access t o a fe der al forum pos t
- i ndi ctm ent i n w hi ch t hey m ayas s er tt he A gr eementas a def

ens e. Separ at i on- of- pow erconce r ns t hus couns el agai ns tus i ng t he extr aor di naryr emedyof enj oi ni ng t he G overnm entfr om fi l i ng t he i ndi ctm ent s . A l t hough cour t s have c a rv e d o u t a n a rro w e x c e p tio n to th is ru le in th o se c a se s in w hich the v eryactof f i l i ng an indi ct m ent m a y c h ill F i rs t A m endmentr igh ts, t hi s cas e does noti m pl i cat e thatconce r n. I n s t e a d , we a r e g u i d e d b yo t h e rc a s e s i n wh i c h t h e S u p r e me C o u rt and C our t s of A ppeal s have he l d t hatnon- pr os ecut i on a g re e m e n ts m a y n o t f

o rm th e b a sis f

o r en jo in in g in d ic tm e n ts b e f o re th e yis s u e . I n t hi s cont ext , w e concl ude t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our tl acke d auth o r i t y t o e mpl o y t h e e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e me d y o f e n j o i n i ng t he G overnm ent ’ s i ndi ctm ent s of St ol t
- N i el s en and W i ngfi el d. T heB eca us e w e concl ude t hat t he D i s t r i ct C our tl acke d t he 7 pow ert o enj o in the fi l i ng of i ndi ctm ent s i n t hi s cas e, w e nee d notcons i der , att hi s s t age, t he G o v ernment ’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum entt hatt he D i s t r i ct C our ti nappr opr i at el yconcl uded that St ol t
- N i el s en’ s and W i ngfi el d’ s act i ons betw een M ar ch and No v e mb e r2 0 0 2 d i d n o t v i o l a t e t h e t e r ms o f t h e Ag r e e me n t
. As sta ted , the D istric t C o u rt’s la c k o f a u th o rity c o m p e ls u s to r ever s e t he j udgm ent and r emand t o t hat C our t s o t hat itm ay d ism iss th e c o m p lain ts. B e c a u se th e ju d g m e n t is r e v e r se d , it la c k s p re c lu s iv e e f

f e c t. S e e , e . g ., J os eph A

. ex r el

. W ol fe v. I ngr am, 275 F. 3d 1253, 1266 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( “A j udgm entt hat has been v ac ated, r ever s ed, ors etas i de on appe al i s t her eby depr i ved of a l l concl us i ve ef fec t , bot h as r es j udi cat a and a s co ll ateral estop p el. ” (intern al qu o tat ion m a rk s o m itted)). T herefore, i f t he ap pell ee s a ssertt he A greem ent as a def ense aft ert heyar e i ndi ct ed, t he D i str ict C our tm us tcons i dert he A gr eementanew and det erm i ne the dat e on w hi ch St ol t
- N i el s en di s cover ed i t s anti compet i t i ve conduc t , t he C om pany ’ s and W i ng fi el d’s s ub seq u e n t ac t i on s, and w hether , i n li gh tof those ac t i o n s , St o l t
- Ni e l s e n c o mpl i e d wi t h i t s o b l i g a t i o n u n d er t he A g re e m e n t to tak e “ p ro m p t a n d e f f e c tiv e a c tio n to ter m in a te its par ti n t he an ti compet i t i ve ac t i vi t ybei ng r epor t ed upon di s coveryof the ac t i vi t y . ” 27 j udgm ent i s t her efor e r ever s ed and the ca s e r emanded w i t h t he in stru c tio n th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss th e ir c o m p lain ts w ith pr ej udi ce. 7