## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 1369 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J ACO B S TADFELD , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 08- CR-138-BBC -2

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judg e.
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 22, 2011

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 27, 2012

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . S YKES, C ir cu i tJudg e . A m os M or ti erwas a m aj or m ar ij uana di strib utorwith a networko fst re et- l eve l sel l er s i n a nd a r o un d Ma di s o n, Wi s c o ns i n. He di s a pp ea re d i n N ove m ber20 04, and the Dane County Dis tr i ct A ttorn ey’s O ffice open ed a J ohn Do e proc eed ing to de term ine w he th er a cri m e had been com m itted
. Prosec ut ors su bp oen aed M ortier ’s know n d rug as sociates to test ify i n the J ohn Doe.2 N o. 11

- 1369 J aco b S tadfel d w as one of those deal er s a nd r ecei ved a subpoena i n Decem ber 2004
. Rather than ap pear b efo re th e Jo h n D o e ju d ge , ass er t h is rig h t t o re m ain si l ent, and f ol l ow the st eps nec es sa ry to o btain f or m al i m m u n ity , he op te d to ta lk to inv es tig at or s in for m ally i n exchange f oran o ra lnonpro sec u tio n agr eem ent fro m the s tat e pr ose cutor
. S tadfel d’s re tained counselm i stak enl y a d vised him thatthi s no nprose cuti on a gr eem ent i m m unize d h im a gainst the use ofhi s s tat em ents by anyp r o s e c ut o r ’ s o f f i ce

— sta te o r fede r al
. Al m o stf o ur y ea r s l at er, b as ed i n pa r t o n h i s st at em en ts to the J o hn Doe i nvest i gat or s, S tadfel d w as i nd i cted bya federa l gr and j ury f orco nspir acy to dist ribute m ar ij uana. H e m ove d to supp re ss the use o fhi s s tat em en ts, ar gui ngtha t he s po k e to i nv es ti g at o r s o nl y b eca us e he w as u n d er th e m i s t a k en im p re ss ion th at h e h ad fu ll i m m uni ty
. The di st r i ctc o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n, ho l di ng that al th ou gh S tadfel d gotbad advi ce fro m hi s a tto rney s, n eit h erthe pol i ce no r the pr ose cutorhad m i sl ed hi m , so hi s s tat em ents w er e no t involun tary. The co urt al so he l d tha t regardl es s o fa ny mis unde r st an di ngabo ut th e s c op e o f th e n on p ro se c u tio n a g re em en t, St ad feld bre ac hed i t byl yi ng to the i nvest i gat or s. S tadfel d w as convi cted bya j ury and no w ap peal s, r ai si ng se ver al cl ai m s of er ro r, but f ocusing pri m ar i l y on the a dm i ssi on of h is s ta te m en ts attria l. W e a ffi r m. T he di s t r i c tc o ur tp r o pe r l y de ni e d the s up pr es si o n mot i o n. S ta dfel d’ s st at ement s w er e no t th e pr o ducto fl aw- en f o r ce m en t co er ci o n, a nd the e r r o ne o us advi ce fro m hi s l aw yer s di d not m ake hi s s ta te m en tsN o. 11

- 1369 3 i nvol untary or i nadm i ssibl e based on i ne ffecti ve as sist ance o fco unsel
. M or eov er, to the extent that St adfe l d thou gh t he had a co m prehensi ve i m m unity ag r ee m en t, i t was c o ndi ti o ne d on his te l l i ngthe t r uth, an d hi s f ai l ur e to do s o was a b r ea ch
.
I . B a c kg r o und I n Nov embe r2 00 4, M o r ti er, a l ar g e- sc al e m ar ij ua na dist ribut or , di sappeare d fr om hi s ho m e in Fi tchburg, W i sco nsi n, a sm al lto w n j ust o utside M adis on. In re sponse to hi s di sappeara nce, the Dane County Dis

tr i ctAtt o r ne y ’ s o ffi ce o pen ed a Jo hn Doe pr o ce eding to i nvest i gat e a nd deter m ine wh ethera cri m e had be en c om m itt ed
. Se ege ne r al l y W IS . S T AT . § 968.26. Pr osecu tors su bp oen aed M ortier’ s kn ow n d rug as sociates to test ify i n the J ohn Doe. So m e a pp ear ed bef or e the J ohn Doe j ud ge, ass er ted thei r Fi fth A m endm ent pri vi l eg e against se l f

- i nc r i m i na ti o n, a nd f o r ced the pr o se cut o rt o a skthe j ud ge to convene a s a co urt and gra nt f or m ali m m unity inord er to co m p el th eir t e s t im on y. Se ei d. §§ 968.26(3), 97 2.0 8(1 ); Sta te v . Wa shin gto n, 266 N
. W
. 2d 597, 60 7- 08 ( W i s. 1978 ) (exp lai nin g th e scop e of th e John D oe p r o c e ed ing); see als o I n r e Joh n D o e P roc eedin g, 660 N
. W
. 2d 260, 28 2- 83 ( W i s. 2 00 3) ( S ykes, J
. , di ss en ting ) ( ex pl aini ngthe l i m i ts on the J ohn Doe j ud ge’ s power)
. S ta d feld r ecei ved a J ohn D oe subp oena, but he di d not fol l ow that for m al c ou rs e. Ins te ad , ont h e ad vic e o f h is re ta in ed co u n se l, he ag re ed to ta l k t o i nvest i gat or s info rm al l y. I n ex c ha ng e f o rS t a dfe l d’ s i nfo r malc o o pe r a t i o n, As s i stan t D istri ct Attorney Cor ey St ephan or al l y a gr eed notto4 N o. 11

- 1369 pr o se cut e hi m b as ed o n a ny stat ement s he made ab o ut his involvem en t in M ortier’ s d rug-d istribu tion netw ork pro vid edtha t he g av e a co m pl et e an d t r uthfuls ta te m en t to inv es tig at or s. St ad feld ’s a tt or n ey s e rro n eo u sly to ld hi m that St ephan’s nonpros ecuti on prom i se gave h im com ple te i m m unity

— not j ust fro m st ate pro secut ion butfr o m the us e o fhi s st at ement s i n any pros ecuti on aga i nst hi m , st ate orfed er al. St adfe l d ther eafterm et seve ra lti m es w i th Jo hn Doe in ve sti gat or s, i ncl ud i ng De te c tiv e Sh an n an Sh eilM o r g ano fthe F i tc hb urgPo l i ce De par tment
. He g av e th e i nv es ti g at o r s a se r i es o fc o nfl i ct i ngs ta tem en ts abo ut M or tie r’s d ru g-t ra ffick in g a c tiv itie s a n d h is ow n role in th e m ar ij uana di str ibuti on netw or k dating ba ck to 2000
. I n 2008 th e U nited States A ttorn ey for th e W estern Dist ri ct o fW i sco nsi n used S tad fel d’s sta tem ents to in d ict h im f o r c on sp ira c y t o d ist rib u te m ar ij u an a in vi ol ati on o f21 U
. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) and 8 46. S tadfel d m ove d to d ism iss , or alt er n at ive ly, to su p p re ss th e u se of h is sta tem ents aga i nst hi m attr i al
. H e c lai m ed that the s tat em ents w er e invol untarybec ause he m i stake n ly believ ed , ba se d on th e e rro n eo u s a d v i c e o f h is c ou n se l, that he had fulli m m unity when he tal ked to the J ohn Doe i nvest i gat or s. A m ag istr ate j ud ge hear d evi dence and re com m ended th at th e d istri ct cou rt de ny both m otions. In h is r ep ort and rec om m endati on , the m agi str ate j ud ge f ound that Stad fel d ’s statem en ts ha d not bee n ind uc ed b y any coerci ve c o nduc t o n the pa r t o fthe s ta te pr o se cut o ro rthe J o hn Doe i nv es ti g ators. He a l so no te d tha t to the e xt en tN o. 11

- 1369 5

M or tier is st ill m issing an d p resu m ed m u rd ered
. W hile 1 St adf eld w as awai t i ng s en t en c i ng i n thi s c as e, the gove rn m en t openly consi dered atte m pting t o prov e that St adfel d w as i nvol ved i n M or t i er ’ s dea th f or the pur pos e ofe s t abl i s hi ng a f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r a mur de r e n h a n c e me n tu n de r U. S
. S
. G. § 2D 1 .1(d )(1). S ee Gover nm en t ’ s Reques tTo Co nt i nue Se nte n ci n g , U n i t e d S ta te s v . S ta d feld , N o. 08-C R -138 -C (W .D
. W is. N ov . 3, 201 0). T he go v ern m en t ultim atel y d e c i d ed no t to se ek th e e n h a n ce m en t. S eeNo t i c e o fG o v e r n me n t ’ s I n t e n tTo N o t S ee k E n h a n ce m en t, U n i t e d S t a t e s v . S t a d f e ld, N o . 08 -C R -1 3 8 -C ( W
. D. W i s . J an. 18 , 20 11 ) ; Gover nm en t ’ s Se nt en c i ng Mem or and u m , U n i t e d S ta te s v . S ta d feld , N o. 08-C R -138 -C (W .D
. W is. F eb . 1, 2 0 1 1 ). S ta dfel d r el i ed o n the mis ta k ena dvi ce o fhis c o uns el, he was no t en ti tl ed to di smi ss al o r su ppr es si o n be cau se he br ea ch ed what ev eri m m uni tya g r ee m en t he tho ug hthe had by l yi ng to i nvest i gat or s in a num b er of m ate ri al re spects
. The di strict co urt accepte d the m agi str ate j ud ge’ s r eco m m endati on a nd deni ed both m oti ons. Pri orto tr i alS tadfel d m ove d to excl ud e any r efer ence to M o r ti er ’ s di sa ppea r an ce a nd the e xi st en ce o fthe J o h n D o e i n v e s t i g a t i o n, c i t i n gth e p o s s ib i l i t y o fi n fl a mm atory p rej ud ice. A t the final pretrial he arin g , how ever, 1 S ta dfel d’ s at to r ne y wi th dr ew the mot i on an d a sk ed th e cour t to al l ow the adm i ssi on of evi dence of the Joh n D oe on the the or y that i t was nece ssa ry to s how the bi as of seve ral of the govern m en t’s w itness es. I n p articu lar, Stad fel d w an ted to argue th at th e all eged c o c ons p irators fal sely i m p lic a t e d him i n th e d rug co ns p iracy to shift the focus off them sel ves i n the J ohn Doe. The co urt denie d6 N o. 11

- 1369 thi s r equest. Later, however, the c ou rt acc epted defense counsel ’s requestto r eferge neri cal l y t o the e xi ste nce o f “a no th eri nv esti g at i o n” o ra “ di ffer en t i nv es ti g at i o n” w hen questi oni ng the witnes ses . A t t rial the go ver nm ent c al l ed Detect i ve Shei l

- M or gan to tes ti fy about the inter vi ew s with St adfe l d. Du ring cr oss ex am in at ion, Sta d feld ’s c ou n se l as ke d t h e d et ec tiv e if she c oul d produce heri ntervie w n ote s. S he te sti fi ed that the note s w er e probabl y destr oye d a fter she filed h er form al r ep orts m em orial izi ng th e interview s. Stad fel d ’s attor ney a ske d the co urt to or der S hei l

- M or gan t o produce hern ot es. The j ud ge tol d the dete cti ve to l oo k f orhernot es du ring a cour t r ece ss, but l ate r re ver sed cour se. T he go ver nm ent obj ecte d to the defense dem an d f o r t h e notes , point ing out that Sheil- M organ ’s w ri tte n re port s had be en pro du ced duri ng di sco ver y, a nd th e r e w a s n o r e a s o n t o th i n kth e r e w a s a n y d i s c r e pan cyb etwee n h erf o r m al r epo r ts a nd the no te s. The c ou rt sus tained the objection an d de nied Stad fel d ’s re quest forpro du cti on o fthe detect i ve’ s inter vi ew not es. The j ury found St adfe l d gui l ty ofco nspir acy to di st r ibut e 10 0 o rmor e k i logram s o fmar ij ua na . At s en tencing the co urt accepte d the g ove rnm ent’ s pos i tio n that the t ota ldrug quanti ty f orthe conspi ra cy w as at l eas t 2 , 177 ki l ogr am s o fm ar ij uana ( abou t 100 pounds per m o nth fo r 48 months ) a nd a tt r ibut ed th e en ti r e amoun t to S ta dfel d i n l i g hto fhi s i nt imat e k no wl edg e o fthe conspi ra cy and w i l l i ngness to j oi n it. M or e s peci fi cal l y, the c ourtf ound that S tad feld was aware o fthe sour ce ofthe d ru gs, the m eans oftr anspor tat i on, the drug- pack-N o. 11

- 1369 7 ag in g a n d d eliv er y m et h od s , t h e q u an tit ies cu st om ar ily del i ve r ed, a nd the na m es o fo th ermar ij ua na di st r ibutors i n the c ha i n. The c o ur t’ s r el ev an t- co nduc t fi ndi ng yi el ded an a dvisor y gu i del i nes r ange of16 8 t o 210 m onths. The j ud ge sente nced St ad feld to 14 4 m onths. Th i s a pp e a lf o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on St ad fel d rai ses thr ee cl ai m s o fer ro r. Fi rs t, he a rgues that the di str i ct c ourtsho uld have suppressed hi s s tat em ents to the J ohn Doe invest i gat or s. H e al so chal l enges th e c ou rt ’s e vid en tia ry ru lin gs reg ar d in g D et ec tiv e Sh ei lM o r g an ’ s i nt er vi ew n otes a nd the e xc l us i o n o fthe evi dence ofM or tier ’ s di sappeara nce and the exi ste nce o f th e John D o e i nv es ti g at i o n. F i na l l y, he c l ai m s th atthe c ou rterr on eo u sly h e l d h im res p on sib le for th e fu ll am ou n t ofm ar ij uana di str ibuted by the c onspi ra cy as j ointly un d ertaken crim inal activity for sen ten cing p urposes .
A . St adfe l d’s M ot i on To Sup pres s W e r evi ew th e deni alo fS tadfel d’s m oti on t o supp re ss un d er a du al stand ard of review : Fa ctu al find ings are r e v i e we d f o r c l e a r e r r o r, wi th s p e c i a l d e fe r e n c e t o t he di st r i ctc o ur t’ s cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o ns , a nd c o nc l usi ons ofl aw ar e r evi ew ed de novo. U nite d S t at e s v. Vil l apan do , 588 F.3d 11 24 , 112 7 (7 th C ir. 20 09 ). Sta d feld argu es th at hi s s t atem en ts to the J ohn Do e investigators we r e i nv o l un t a r y a nd s ho ul d h a ve b e e n s up pr e s s e d.8 N o. 11

- 1369 H is b asi c conte nti on i s that but f or the bad advi ce of h is att or neys about the s cope o fthe sta te nonpros ecuti on agr eem ent, he woul d not hav e s poken with the pol i ce. A conv iction obt ained by the use of an involu nt ary c on fes sio n v iola te s d u e p ro c es s. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Val l ar, 63 5 F.3d 271 , 281 (7th C ir. 2011). A confess ion i s volun tary an d ad m i s sib le if, “ ‘in th e t ot alit y of c irc u m st an c es , i t is the pr oduct ofa ra ti onali nt ell ect and fr ee w i l land not th e r es ul t o f phy si ca l ab us e, psy ch o l o g i ca li nt i m i dat i o n, o rd e c e p t i v e i n t e r r o g a t i o nt a c t i c s th a th a v e o v e r c o me the defendant’s fre e wil l
. ’ ” Id. at 282 ( quoti ng U nited S t a t e s v. G illa um , 372 F. 3d 848, 856 ( 7th Cir
. 2004 ) ) . A f al se prom i se ofl eni ence i s “ an exam p l e o ff orbi dd en [ i nter ro gat i on] ta cti cs, f ori t w ou ld i m pede the s uspect i n m aking an i nfo rm ed choi ce a s t o w h et h erhe was b et te r off c on fes sin g or cla m m in g u p .” U nited St at e s v. B aldw in , 60 F. 3d 363, 365 (7th Cir. 1995). A n obv i ous fl aw i n St ad feld’s ar gum ent i s that i t r est s on th e m ist a k en ad vic e o f h is law ye rs , not coe rci ve conduct b y l aw - enf or cem ent o ffi cer s. “[ C]oe rci ve pol i ce acti vi ty i s a nece ssa rypre d icate to [ a] fi nd i ng tha t a co nfes si o n i s no t vo l unt ary wi th i n th e m ea ni ngo fthe D u e P ro c es s C lau s e o f th e F ou rt ee n th A m en d m en t.” U n it ed S ta te s v. H uer ta , 23 9 F
. 3d 865, 87 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01) ( i n te rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); s e ea l s o S c hn e c kl ot h v. B usta m o nte, 41 2 U. S
. 2 18 , 2 26 ( 19 73)
. Ev en“ [ t] he m osto utra geo us behav i orbya pri vate part y seeki ng to secur e evidence a gainst a defendant does not m ake that ev id en c e in ad m iss ible u n d er th e D u e P ro c es s C lau se .” C o lo rad o v. C o nn elly, 47 9 U .S. 15 7, 16 6 (1 98 6). T h is p rin c ip le i s h o r nb o o kl a w:N o. 11

- 1369 9 Coerc i ve pol i ce a cti vi ty i s a nece ssa rypre dica te to fin d in g t h at a c o n f es sio n is n ot“v olu n ta ry ” w ith in th e m ea ni ngo fthe Du e P roce ss Cl au se . Al th o ug h a defendant ’ s m en ta lc o ndi ti o n may b e a si g ni fi ca nt f acto r i n the “vo lu n ta rine ss cal cul us, ” thi s doe s no t j usti fy a co ncl usi on that hi s m entalco nd itio n , by i ts el fa nd a par t fr o m i ts rela ti o n t o o ffi ci alc o er ci o n, sh o ul d e ve rdi spo se o fthe i nqui r y i nt o c o ns ti tu
ti onal“vo l untariness. ” 2 A C HA RLES A LA N W RI GHT & P ETER J. H E N N I NG , F ED ERAL P RACT I CE AN D P ROCEDURE § 414, at 162 (4th ed
. 2009). Si m plyp u t, th er e was no coe rci ve pol i ce a cti vi ty here
. N eit h er th e s ta te p ro se c u to r n or th e Jo h n D oe inv es tigat or s m ade any thre ats o r f al se prom i ses o fl eni en cy to obt ai n St adfe l d’s sta tem ents. They di d not r eso rtto su b ter fuge o r decepti ve i nter ro gat i on t acti cs t o geth im to t a l k
. In e x c h a n g e f o ra c o mpl e t e a n d t r u th ful sta tem ent t o the J ohn Doe investiga tors, the sta te pros ecuto rp r o mi s e d n o tt o p r o s e c ut e S t a dfe l d b utma de no r epr es en ta ti o ns abo uta fede r alpr o se cut i o n. The su g g es ti o n that t he s ta te pr o se cut o r ’ s o r alno npr o se cuti on a gr eem ent g ave St adfe l d com ple te i m m unity

— i n c l u d i n gi mmu n i t y fr o m f e de r al pro secuti on

— c a me fr o m his o w n la w yers , nota gov ernm ent a gent. St adfe l d conce d es the poi nt and i nstea d take s a differ ent t ack. Ci ti ng U nite d State s v. C a h il l , 92 0 F
. 2d 421 ( 7 th. Ci r . 1 9 9 0 ) , a nd U ni t ed Sta te s v. Ci ch on , 48 F. 3d 269 (7t h C ir. 19 95 ), he arg u es th at th e go ve rn m en t c an b e h eld to a pro m i se of im m unity i t di d not a ctual l y m ake

— eve n abse nt o ffi ci alm i sco nd uct

— if (1) th e d efe n d an t g en u in ely10 N o. 11

- 1369 be l i ev ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t m ade the pr o m i se ; a nd ( 2) the b el i efwas o bj ec ti ve l y r ea so nabl e. Thi s i s ane xtravag an t m isread ing of C ahill a nd Cic hon
. C ahill i nv olved a pr osecu tion for m ailfrau d , w ire fr au d, an d se ve r al o th er fede r alo ffen se s ar i singo uto fthe co l l aps e o fa thr i ft- sa ving s i ns ti tu ti o n ins ur ed bythe F DI C. 9 20 F
. 2d at4 22

- 23
. F ede r al r egul at o r s ev alua ting th e co l l aps e l o o k ed i nt o the thr i ft’ s r el at i o ns hi p wi tha m or tga ge com pany r un by the defendant Cahil l
. Id. A lth ou gh an A ss ist an t U n ite d Sta te s A tt or n ey init ially assure d Ca hi l ltha t he was no t th e ta r g eto fa n o ng o i ng c rim in al in ve st iga tio n, fed er al a u th or itie s e ve n tu ally cam e to beli eve t h a t C ah il l w as involved i n th e thrift’s c olla p se . Id. at42 3- 24. The pro sec utorto l d C ahi l lthat i m m unity was not ap propri ate under the ci rcum sta nces an d su gg es te d th at if h e w an te d to co op er at e, h e c ou ld m ak e a p ro ffer
. Id. at42 4. Cah ill a gr eed to do s o and w as lat er ind ict ed
. Id. H e m ov ed t o s u p p re ss th e u se of h is sta tem ents, in si sting tha t he had been g ra nted i m m unity, o r al tern atively, that his statem en ts w ere involun tary b e c a u s e th e y w e r e i nd u c e d b y a f a l s e p r o mi s e o fi mm u n ity
. Id. at42 5. The di stric t co ur t r ej ec te d the se a r g um en ts , c r edi ting the Assi sta nt U
. S. A tto rney ’ s t es tim ony that he neve r offe re d C ah ill i m m u n ity
. Id. at4 26 . W e a ffi rm ed thi s f actsp ec ific h old in g. Id
. at 427. There was no e vi dence that Cahil lhad bee n gr anted i m m unity, norany supp or t for hi s c l a i m tha t hi s s t a t e men t s we r e mad e un de ra “ pe r c e pti o n, ” wro ng ful l y i nduc ed bythe pr o se cut o r, tha t he h ad be en gra n te d im m u n ity
. Id. O n th i s l at te r po i n t, weN o. 11

- 1369 11 ob se rv ed th at “[a ] d efe n d an t’s p er c ep tio n th at h e is provi ding t es ti m ony und era gr ant o fi m m unity doe s no tma k e h i s st a t e men ti nv o l un t a r y, u nl e s s the p e r c e pti on was r eas onabl e. ” Id. ( ci ti ng U n i t e d S ta tes v. Sh ears, 762 F. 2d 397, 40 1- 03 ( 4th Ci r. 19 85) )
. To the exte nt that C ah ill “p er c eiv ed ” t h a t h e h ad im m u n ity , w e h eld that “[ the] per cepti on was unrea sonab l e. ” Id. St adfe l d seem s t o thi nk tha t C ahill st an d s fo r th e p ro p os iti o n tha t a de fen dan t’ s st at ementc anb e dee m ed i nv o l untar y a nd thus s ubj ect to supp re ssi on e ven in the abse nce ofev i dence ofco er ci ve tact i cs b y l aw enf or cem ent. N ot t r u e . To th e c on tr ar y, C ahill re lied on a Fo u rt h C irc u it deci si on that follow ed the nor m o fdeci ding a m oti on to su p p re ss by as kin g w h et h e r t h e p olic e e n ga ge d in c oe rc ive co n d u c t t o ov e r c om e t h e d efe n d an t’s free w ill. See Sh ears , 7 6 2 F
. 2 d a t4 0 2 ( “ [ T] he de fe nd a nt’ s p e r c e pti on o fwh at gov er nm ent a gents have pro m i sed i s a n i m po r ta ntf ac to ri n de te r m i ni ngv o l unt ar i ne ss . ”)
. Nothi ng i n C ahill si gnal s a ny d eparture fro m well

- est abl i shed vol untariness doctr i ne. S t a dfe l d a l s o mis unde r s t a nd s Ci ch on . That ca se al so in v o l ve d a d efe n d an t’s effo rtto su p p re ss th e u se of h is sta tem ents base d on a cl ai m that g overnm ent a gents fals ely p ro m ise d h im im m u n ity
. 4 8 F .3d at27 5-7 6. A s in C ahill, the di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d the cl ai m bec au se it w as fac tu ally u n su p p or te d , an d w e a ffirm ed
. Id. at2 76 ( “T he dis t r i c tc o ur ta l s o ma de i tc l e a rtha ti tdi s b e l i eve d M r . Ci ch o n’ s te st i m o ny th at he w as p rom ised i m m un ity. ”). N either Cic hon nor C ahill su ppo r ts St adfel d’ s ar g um en t th athi s st at ement s ca n b e dee m ed i nv o l unt ary i n the abse nce o fco er ci ve conduct by gov er nm ent a gents
.12 N o. 11

- 1369 I n the al ternati ve, S tadfel d ar gu es that hi s s tat em ents to the J o hnDo e i nv e s t i g a t o r s s ho ul d h a v e b e e n s up p ressed un d er St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 466 U
. S. 688 (1984), as th e pr od u c t of th e ine ffec tiv e ass ist an c e of h i s c ou n se l. This ar gum ent ove rl oo ks the basi c pri nci ple that a S ix th A m en d m en t in effe c tiv e-a ss ist an c e-o f-c ou n se l cl aim is vi abl e o nl y a

fterthe ri ght to counselat taches , wh i ch ta kes p lace “ato r afterthe i ni ti ati on o fadver sar y j ud i ci al cri m i nalpro ceedi ngs

— whe the rb y wa y o ff o r malc ha r g e, pr el i m i na r y h ea r i ng, i ndi ct m en t, i nf o r m at i o n, o ra r r ai g nm ent. ” K ir by v. Ill inois , 406 U
. S. 68 2, 68 9 ( 1972 )
. H er e, St adfe l d agr eed to ta l k t o the pol i ce info rm al l y, i n l i eu o fa ppea r i ngb efo r e th e J o hn Doe j udg e, l o ng b efo r e th e i ni ti ati on o fadver sar y j ud i ci alcr i m i nalpro ceedi ngs. A J o hn Doe i s a spe ci ali nv es ti g ative pr o ce eding th at d ev el o p e d a s a fea tu re in W isc on sin cr im in al la w in the l ate ni netee nth centur y u n d era sta tute that al l owed a m agistr ate to exam i ne witnes ses under o ath a fterr ec eiv in g a c om p lain t t h at a c rim e h ad be en co m m itt ed
. See Was hi ngt on , 266 N
. W
. 2d at 603 (de scribing th e statu tory hi sto ry )
. A Jo h n Doe i s “ not so m uch a pro cedure f or th e de t e r mi na t i o n o f pr o b ab l e c a us e a s i t i s a n i nquest f orthe disc ove ryo fcr i m e in w hi ch the j ud ge has s i gni fi cant powers , ” incl ud i ng the abi l i ty t o subpoena wit

n es se s. Id. at60 4. A J ohn Doe pr oce ed in g d oes not b e g i n the a dv e r s a r i a lp ro c e s s a g a i ns ta c r i mi na la c c us e d. Rather, the ro l e of the J ohn Doe i s to gather evi dence fro m w i tn e s s e s i n o r d e rt o d e t e r m i n e w h e th e ra c r i m i n a lc o mp l a i n ts h o u l d b e fi l e d o rwh e t h e rn o c r i me w a s c o mm itt ed
. Id. at60 5. Se eal s o In reJo hn D o e Pr oc e e di ng, 66 0 N .W .2d at27 5-7 6; id. at 286- 87 ( Sy kes , J
. , di sse nti ng)N o. 11

- 1369 13 (exp lai nin g the rol e an d l im its ofa J ohn Do e j ud ge’s p ow er). A ccord ing ly , the John Do e investigation i nt o M ortier’ s di s a pp e a r a nc e wa s no t the b e g i nn i ng o f the a dver sarialcr i m i nalpro cess ag ai nst S tadfel d. A l though the J ohn Doe s tatu te p er m i ts w i tness es to have counsel pr es en t dur i ngthe i rt es ti m o ny, the pr oce edingr emai ns n on ad ve rs ar ial a n d co u n s e l ’ s ro le is s tr ict ly lim ite d
. See W IS . S T AT . § 968. 26( 3) ( sta ti ng that “ c ou nselshal lnotbe al l o wed t o e xam i ne hi s o rhe rc l i en t, c r o ss - ex ami ne oth er w itness es, or argue be fore t h e j ud ge”). Stad fel d ’s re cei pt of a J ohn Doe subpoena did not tr i gge r hi s Si xth A m end m ent r i ght t o counsel
. Because hi s co nsti tuti onal ri ght t o counselhad not att ached w hen he g ave hi s s tat em ents to i nvest i gat or s, ther e i s no bas i s for a cl ai m o f in effe c tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. Fi nal l y, w e agr ee w i th the dist ri ct cour t that to w h ateve r extent St adfe l d thou ght he had a c om prehensi ve im m u n ity ag re em en t, it w as co n d itio n al. A n y re as on ab le b e l i e fi n a p r o mi s e o fi mmun i t y v a n i s h e d w h e n h e kn o wi ngl y l i ed to i nvest i gat or s. S tadfel d w as not enti tl ed to th e r emedy o fs uppr es si o n.
B. St adfe l d’s Evi den t i ary Chal l enges 1. Evi de nc eof

M or t i e r ’s D i s appe aranc ean d theJohn D oe W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e vi denti ar y rulings forabuse of d isc r et ion
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe nal oza , 64 8 F
. 3d 539, 54 4 (7th C ir. 2011). Stad fel d argue s tha t the district cou rt abused i ts disc re ti on byr efusi ng to al l ow a ny ev i dence14 N o. 11

- 1369 ofM or ti er ’ s di sappeara nc e an d the J ohn Doe invest i gati on. A l though S tadfel d’s att or neys i ni ti al l y m ov ed to excl ud e thi s e vi dence, theyl ate r w i thdrew that m oti on and aske d the co urt to al l ow it, arg uingthatthe evi dence w as relev a n t to the cred ibi li ty of th e cocon sp irators w ho w ou ld be tes tifyin g against Stad fel d
. Th eir th eory w as that the c oconspir ato rs had a m oti ve to l i e t o defl ect att enti on a w ay fro m them sel ves i n the J ohn Doe. B e f o r e a d d r e s s i n gth e me r i t s o fth i s a r g um e n t, we note fi rs t that the go ver nm ent m ai ntai ns thatS ta d feld w aiv ed an y ob j e c t ion to th e c ou rt ’s ru lin g e x c lu d in g t h is evi dence. That i s incor re ct. N earthe end ofthe fi nal pretr i alhear i ng, afterthe court h ad d eni ed the m oti on to adm i t e vi dence ofthe John Doe, S tadfel d’s att or ney as k ed th e co ur t for per m i ss i o n t o r efert o “ an o th eri nvest igation” w he n q ue stioning th e w itness es. T he cou rt ag r ee d. Thi s was n ot a wai ve r, a s th e g o ve r nm en t co nte n d s, b u t m er ely an ad ap ta tio n to an ad ve rs e e vid en tia ry ru lin g m ad e b y t h e d ist ric t c ou rt
. C f. Wi l s on v . Wi l l i a ms , 18 2 F
. 3d 5 62, 56 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( en banc) (h old in g t h at ad ap ta tio n to ad ve rs e ru lin g on m ot ion in li m ine d id n ot w aive estab li sh ed obj ection ). On the m er its , ho w eve r, the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on t o ex cl ude thi s ev i den ce was e nt i r ely soun d. Adm i tt i ng e v i d e n c e ab o u tMo r t i me r ’ s d i s a p p e a r a n c e a n d th e J o hn Doe woul d ha ve t ak enthe t r i alf ara fi el d fr o m the ch ar g ed cr i m e i nv o l vingthe m ar ij ua na - tr affi ck i ngc o nsp ira c y. E x c lu d in g t h is e vid en c e d id n otse r i ou sly inh ibit Stad fel d ’s abilit y to cross-exa m ine th e cocon sp irators to expose thei r sel f- i nter est
. Counselwas perm i tte dN o. 11

- 1369 15 to

— an d d id

— cro ss- exam i n e the co conspi ra tor s ba sed o n th ei r tes ti m ony i n “another i nvest i gat i on” and use d t h is l i ne o fi nquir y t o att ack thei r cre dibi l i ty. The di str i ct c ou rtd id n otab u se its d isc re t i o n in ex c lu d in g t h is e vidence.

2. R e quest To Insp ect D etectiv e Sh eil-M o rga n’s In terview N o tes St adfe l d c onte nd s that hi s i nabi l i ty to obt ai n D et ec ti ve Shei l

- M or gan’ s inter vi ew not es preve nted hi m fro m at ta ck i nghe rc r edibi l i tya nd de pr i ve d hi m o f i m po r ta nt inform ation ab ou t w ha t w as said du ring the p oli ce intervi ew s. H e has noti denti fi ed any re aso n to suspectthat th e de t e c t i v e ’ s i nt e r v i e w no t e s a r e i nc o ns i s t e nt wi th her w ri tte n re port s. N ordoes he c i te any lega lautho ri ty

— no evi denti ar y rule , no disc ove ry rul e, no case

— to su p p ort th i s cl ai m o fe r r o r . Undev el o ped ar g um en ts a r e co nsid er ed w aiv ed
. G ross v. To w n of Cice ro, Ill
. , 61 9 F
. 3d 697, 704 ( 7th Ci r. 2 01 0) ( “[ I ] t i s no t thi s co urt’ s r esponsibi l i ty to r es ea r cha nd c o ns tructthe pa r ti es’ arg um en ts , a nd concl usor y anal ysi s w i l l be const rued as w ai ve r.” (quota

tion m arks om itted ))
.
C. Rele vant - Cond uct Findings Fi nal l y, S tadfel d chal len ges the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s f actfi nd in g r ega rdi ng the sco pe ofhi s j oi ntl y undert ake n cri m i nal acti vi ty f or pu rpos es ofes ti m ating drug quanti ty ats en te nc i ng . W e rev i ew the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s se nt en cing fin d in gs for c lea r er ro r. U ni t e d St at e s v. E dw a rds , 11 5 F
. 3d16 N o. 11

- 1369

The di s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s a s s e s s me n t o f th e s e f a c t o r s i s n o t t he e nd 2 ofthe r el eva nt
- c onduc tan al ys i s . Af t er det er m i ni ng the s c ope of j oint ly und ert aken cri m inal act ivity, “the court m ust m ake a two
- part determ inat ion ofw hetherthe condu ctofother s w as b oth i n fur the ra nc e ofthat joint c ri m i nalac t i vi t y a nd r ea s onabl y f o r e s e e a b l e t o th e de fe n da n t i n c o n n e c t i o n wi th t he j ointcr im inal act ivity. ” Uni t e d St a t e s v . S a l e m ( Sa l e m I) , 597 F
. 3d 877, 8 8 6 ( 7th Cir
. 2010) ( c i t i ng U ni t ed Sta t es v. Fox , 548 F. 3d (co n tin u ed ...) 13 22 , 132 5 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ). A fac tu a l f i n d in g is c lea rly e r r o n e o u s wh e n th e c o u r t “ i s l e ft ‘ wi th a d e fi ni te a nd firm co n vic tio n th at a m ist ak e h as be en co m m itt ed .’ ” Id. (qu oti ngU nited Sta tes v. Herrera , 5 4 F
. 3d 34 8, 3 56 ( 7th Ci r. 1995 ))
. “ ‘[ I ]ftw o p erm issible v iew s e xist, th e fact-find er’s choi ce between them cannot be cl ear l y e rr oneo us. ’ ” U nited St at e s v. Tayl or, 7 2 F. 3d 53 3, 5 46 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 5) ( quo ting U nite d State s v. M cD ona ld, 22 F.3d 139 , 144 (7th C ir. 1994)). To deter m i ne drug quanti ty f orpurposes o fr el evant
con d uc t an a ly s is in a con sp iracy case, the d istri ct cou rt m ust fi rs t dete rm i ne the sco pe ofthe cri m i nalact i vi ty th e d efe n d an t a gr ee d to jo i n tly u n d er ta ke
. See U. S
. S
. G. § 1 B 1.3 (a)( 1 ) ( B ) ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S a l e m ( S a l e m I) , 59 7 F
. 3d 877, 886 (7th C ir. 2010). W e hav e sa id th at seve ral factors ar e r el ev an t: ( 1) the exi ste nce o fa si ngl e s chem e; ( 2) si m i l ar i ti es i n m odus oper andi; ( 3) co or dinati on o f acti vi ti es am ong schem er s; ( 4) pool i ng o fr eso u rc es or p r o fi t s ; ( 5 ) k n o wl e d g e o f th e d e t a i l s o f th e s c h e me ; a nd (6) le n gt h an d d eg re e o f th e d efe n d a n t ’s p ar tic ip at ion in th e s c h em e. Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S a l e m ( Salem II) , 65 7 F
. 3d 560, 564 (7th C ir. 2011). 2N o. 11

- 1369 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 2 5 2 3 , 5 3 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) )
. Th e s e nt enci ng g ui de l i ne s pr ov i de thata defendan t i s accountable f or the j oint ly und ert aken crim ina l co nd u ct of oth ers, pro v id ed the co nd u ct is: ( 1) in fur the ra nc e ofthe j oi nt l y und ertake n c ri m i nalac t i vi t y; an d ( 2) i s rea sonably f ores eeable in c onnecti on w ith thatcr im inal activ ity. U .S. S.G
. § 1B 1.3 c m t
. n.2. H ere, Stad feld a rg u es on ly thatthe dist ri ctcourt f ail ed to m ake s uffic ien tly parti cular ize d findings r egarding the s cope ofhis jo in tl y und ert aken agreem e n t . H e d o e s n o tc h a l l e n g e th e o th e r st e p s i n th e c o u r t ’s an aly sis. H er e, the di st r i ctc o ur t fi r st d ete r m i ne d tha t th e sco pe ofS tadfel d’s j oi ntl y undert ake n cr i m i nalact ivi ty i ncl ud ed the re gul arrecei pt by the M or ti ero rg ani zati on o f l ar g e del i ve r i es o fmar ij ua na

— about 100 pound s per m onth

— fro m Canada thro ugh N ew Yor k fordi str ibuti on i n and aro und M adis on. The co urt als o deter m i ned that th e m ar ij uana ty pica l l y a rr i ved i n M adis on in pri vate ca r s, was g en er al l y o ffl o ade d a t M ortier ’ s r es i den ce , a nd the n fr o nt e d t o l o we r - l e v e l de a l e r s l i k e S t a dfe l d fo r furtherdi str ibuti on. The co urt f ound that S tadfel d w as aw ar e o fthe s pe c i fi c de t a i l s o fthe c o ns pi r a c y a nd i ts m etho d ofo perat i on, i ncl ud i ng the so urce ofthe drugs, th e m et h od s o f p ac ka gin g a n d d eliv er y , d eliv er y q u an titi es, and the nam es ofo therst re et- l eve lm ar ij uana di stributo rs sup p li ed by M ortier. St ad feld arg u e s t h at th es e fin d in gs are ins u fficie n tly parti cul ar i zed to sup p or t the co urt’ s dete rm i nati on that the s cope o fthe cr im in alact i vi ty he j oi ntl y a gr eed to und er tak e was co extensi ve w i th the enti re m ar ij uana-18 N o. 11

- 1369 t r a ffi c k i ngc o ns pi r a c y du r i ngthe r e l e v a ntt i me pe r i o d. W e di sag re e. The c ou rt’ s fi nd i ngs, tho ugh not acco m pan i ed byl en g thy a na l y si s, wer e ea si l y s uffi ci en t an d b a s i c a l l y t r a c k ed the kno wl e dg e a nd mo du s o pe r a nd i f ac to r s i den ti fi ed i n o urde ci si o n in Salem II
. T he di s t ri ct co ur t al so o bs er ve d a s a m o r e g en er almatt ertha t th e ev id e n c e a t t ria l su p p or te d th e e x ist en c e o f a sin gle schem e a nd d em onst ra ted subst anti alco or dinat i on o f ac t i v i t i e s b y a n d a mo n gth e c o c o n s p i r a t o r s , i n c l u di ng St ad feld
. Se ei d. Final l y, the cour t no ted th at Stadfel d w as involved in th e con sp iracy f or m ore tha n four years

— fro m 2000 to 20 04

— ea si l y l o nge no ug h t o s uppo r t the c o nc l usion th at he “agreed to adv an ce th e goals o f t h e entire sch em e and [ is] thu s ac cou nt able for j ointly un d ertak en activity. ” Id. at56 5. The di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs re gar ding the sco pe of St adfe l d’s j oi ntly u nd er tak en cri m i nalact i vi ty w er e no t cl ear l y e rr oneo us. A FFI RMED .

7- 27- 12