Opinion ID: 725501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lawyer-Client Relationship

Text: 32 One further notion strengthens our belief that cooperating witnesses should be given the opportunity to bring counsel to debriefing interviews. Once an accused has a lawyer, a distinct set of constitutional safeguards aimed at preserving the sanctity of the attorney-client relationship takes effect. Patterson v. Illinois, 487 U.S. 285, 290 n. 3, 108 S.Ct. 2389, 2393 n. 3, 101 L.Ed.2d 261 (1988) (citing Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159, 176, 106 S.Ct. 477, 487, 88 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). In Moulton, 474 U.S. at 176, 106 S.Ct. at 487, the Supreme Court concluded that while the Sixth Amendment is not violated whenever the state obtains incriminating statements from a defendant, knowing exploitation by the State of an opportunity to confront the accused without counsel being present is ... a breach of the State's obligation not to circumvent the right to the assistance of counsel. In the case at hand, in which appellant was a cooperating witness, he was also a defendant represented by counsel. During the debriefing interview, the government, acting consistently with the spirit and the letter of the Sixth Amendment and with the fair administration of justice, should have actively facilitated that representation. 33 We have previously outlined what a prosecutor should do when communicating with represented parties. In United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 934 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Vence v. United States, 488 U.S. 867, 109 S.Ct. 174, 102 L.Ed.2d 143, and cert. denied sub nom. Castano v. United States, 488 U.S. 932, 109 S.Ct. 323, 102 L.Ed.2d 341 (1988), appellants challenged a prosecutor's conduct because she questioned Mecolta, a convicted prisoner. Mecolta's testimony was sought by the government for use at a subsequent trial; but in giving such testimony Mecolta subjected himself to the possibility of further prosecution for crimes unrelated to his prior conviction. Although the prosecutor arranged for the district court to appoint a lawyer to represent Mecolta, she nevertheless went ahead and questioned him outside the attorney's presence and without the attorney's consent, thereby nullifying the very safeguard she had so carefully arranged. Id. at 931. We thought such behavior, particularly in light of Code of Professional Responsibility DR 7-104(A)(1), was ethically questionable. Id. at 934-35. The prosecutor had contended in Pinto that she had no obligation to ensure Mecolta's counsel's presence when she questioned him because he was only a witness. Id. at 935 (emphasis in original). In our view this only a witness argument was specious. Mecolta was, we found, a potential defendant whose testimony might compromise his Fifth Amendment rights, a circumstance of which the prosecutor was well aware. Id. 34 The present facts are quite similar. Ming He was a potential witness who was also a defendant, and the prosecutor knew he was represented by counsel. And, certain statements by this potential witness could have led to a waiver of his Fifth Amendment immunity and near-certain prosecution. Although we thought that the conduct in Pinto was unseemly, we found no constitutional or ethical violation. Id. This was partly because Mecolta himself did not raise a claim; the issue before us concerned the prosecutor's right to Mecolta's testimony. See id. at 934. 35 Today we deal with the case hypothetically noted in Pinto. The controversy before us squarely concerns what protections are to be accorded a cooperating witness who is represented by counsel. Both cases originated in the same district, and, though we characterized the prosecutor's conduct in Pinto as unseemly, the hint to make some sort of change apparently was not acted upon. Instead, the government's conduct in this case, we are told, is not a rare occurrence but standard practice. This standard practice, while it may or may not pass constitutional muster, is one that should be abandoned. We have previously given clear warnings, United States v. Estepa, 471 F.2d 1132, 1137 (2d Cir.1972) (explaining that clear warnings must be followed by prosecutorial action), to prosecutors regarding their dealings with represented witnesses. In light of the government's failure to heed Pinto 's should not admonition, we cannot yet again rely on precatory words but must use the unmistakable word vacate. See United States v. Oshatz, 912 F.2d 534, 541 (2d Cir.1990) (noting the hazards of non-compliance with our hortatory comments), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 910, 111 S.Ct. 1695, 114 L.Ed.2d 89 (1991).D. Supervisory Authority Exercised 36 With this background in mind, we turn to the merits of the case at hand. A federal court, guided by considerations of justice, McNabb, 318 U.S. at 341, 63 S.Ct. at 613, may exercise its supervisory powers to formulate procedural rules not mandated by the Constitution. See United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 1978, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). Were this a case arising out of our habeas corpus jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which we assess the constitutionality of a state proceeding, we would have to decide the constitutional claim if squarely raised. However, our authority to review procedures used in federal courts is not limited solely to ascertaining whether they are constitutionally valid. See McNabb, 318 U.S. at 340, 63 S.Ct. at 612-13. 37 It is our task to supervise the administration of justice in the federal courts, and to that end we must ensure that fair standards of procedure are maintained. See id. Our supervisory authority extends to sentencing, United States v. Perez, 904 F.2d 142, 148 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 905, 111 S.Ct. 270, 112 L.Ed.2d 226 (1990), and cert. denied sub nom. Garcia v. United States, 498 U.S. 1124, 111 S.Ct. 1085, 112 L.Ed.2d 1189 (1991), particularly when we are dealing with a procedure for which a uniform practice is called for. See United States v. Coke, 404 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir.1968) (in banc ) (Friendly, J.). Other courts have found that exercise of supervisory authority is appropriate when needed to guarantee the defendant a fair sentencing proceeding. See United States v. Herrera-Figueroa, 918 F.2d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1990). Similarly, a fair proceeding must not be influenced by improperly based disparaging comments (such as those used here) in the government's § 5K1.1 motion. 38 Thus, we may require lower courts to adhere to procedures deemed desirable as a matter of sound judicial practice even though the procedures may not be directed either by statute or the Constitution. See United States v. Jacobs, 547 F.2d 772, 776 (2d Cir.1976), cert. granted, 431 U.S. 937, 97 S.Ct. 2647, 53 L.Ed.2d 254 (1977), and cert. dismissed, 436 U.S. 31, 98 S.Ct. 1873, 56 L.Ed.2d 53 (1978). On occasion, and we think this is one, we must act to secure rights even though they may not be guaranteed by the Constitution when we are persuaded a procedure followed in a trial court is wrong. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 146, 94 S.Ct. 396, 400, 38 L.Ed.2d 368 (1973); In Re N.D.N.Y. Grand Jury Subpoena (United States v. Grand Jury Witness ), 811 F.2d 114, 118 (2d Cir.1987). 39 Of course, our supervisory authority is not a form of free-floating justice, untethered to legal principle. Attempts by courts, for example, to use the otherwise broad supervisory authority as a substitute for Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which adequately safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures, have been rejected. United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727, 735, 100 S.Ct. 2439, 2446, 65 L.Ed.2d 468 (1980). However, Payner did not paint with a broad brush. It did not purport to limit the traditional scope of the supervisory power, nor did it render that power 'superfluous.'  Id. at 736 n. 8, 100 S.Ct. at 2447 n. 8. Payner simply rejected reliance on supervisory power as a substitute for the Fourth Amendment. We too have recognized that courts cannot fashion their own 'sub-constitutional' limitations on the conduct of law enforcement agents. United States v. Myers, 692 F.2d 823, 847 (2d Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 961, 103 S.Ct. 2437, 2438, 77 L.Ed.2d 1322 (1983); see also United States v. Lau Tung Lam, 714 F.2d 209, 210 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 942, 104 S.Ct. 359, 78 L.Ed.2d 322 (1983) (explaining that supervisory power over DEA conduct in a sting operation is extremely limited). 40 This particular exercise of supervisory power is not an encroachment on the conduct of executive branch officials, that is, we are not attempting to govern the conduct of federal agents whose task is to investigate and prevent criminal activity. See N.D.N.Y. Grand Jury Subpoena, 811 F.2d at 118. Rather, we are enforcing our general supervisory authority over members of the bar of this Court, lawyers who are at the same time United States attorneys, see United States v. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834, 837 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 871, 111 S.Ct. 192, 112 L.Ed.2d 154 (1990), and directing the district courts not to further this practice relied on by a federal prosecutor. Because this subject is within the traditional role of the Court, it does not run afoul of Payner. 41 The federal prosecutor, by establishing a standard practice which created what we think are serious constitutional questions, raised a red flag that attracted our attention. There is a broad presumption that the right to counsel attaches in this sort of setting--a confrontational, post-indictment interview by the government. See Patterson, 487 U.S. at 290, 108 S.Ct. at 2393 (explaining that there can be no doubt that a right to counsel exists in post-indictment government interviews). 42 When the Ninth Circuit exercised its supervisory authority to allow defendants to have counsel in probation interviews, it explained that whenever important interests of a defendant are at stake, the defendant is entitled to be represented by a lawyer. Herrera-Figueroa, 918 F.2d at 1436. In addition, there are strong rules that protect the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship. We made plain in Pinto that a federal prosecutor meeting with a represented party outside of his attorney's presence is a practice we disfavor. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 259, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 2375-76, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988) (indicating that exercise of supervisory authority might be predicated on prosecutorial misconduct spanning several cases and raising question about process's fundamental fairness); United States v. Brito, 907 F.2d 392, 394 (2d Cir.1990). Whatever may be the constitutionality of the standard practice challenged in the instant case, it is in our opinion inconsistent with the fair administration of criminal justice. 43 Consequently, in the exercise of our supervisory authority, we rule that cooperating witnesses are entitled to have counsel present at debriefings, unless they explicitly waive such assistance. III Waiver Considerations 44 A defendant is not required to invite counsel to accompany him to a debriefing session, nor is the government prevented from conditioning a cooperation agreement on the defendant's waiver of this protection. In short, defense counsel's assistance is waivable. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 832, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2539-40, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 45 The government asserts--in the context of refuting Ming He's contention that he had a constitutionally guaranteed right to counsel--that Ming He waived any claim to be represented by counsel in the debriefings. Although the cooperation agreement does waive several rights and protections, it does not explicitly waive defendant's right to counsel. And, since the agreement expressly disclaims the existence of any promises, agreements or conditions other than those expressly included, the government may only urge that defendant implicitly waived a right to counsel, either by not asking for counsel to be present or because counsel failed to ascertain the specific times and locations of the debriefings and to appear at those times and places. 46 The government maintains that Ming He waived his right to counsel, relying on United States v. Cortes, 922 F.2d 123, 127-28 (2d Cir.1990), and Colon, 905 F.2d at 588. Such a view misapprehends the purport of those holdings. In those cases, which concerned the absence of counsel at probation interviews, we ruled that a right-to-counsel argument was waived because of a failure to object or otherwise preserve the issue for appeal. See Colon, 905 F.2d at 588 (Colon has waived this argument); Cortes, 922 F.2d at 128 (noting the defendant's failure to raise his Sixth Amendment objection in the district court and finding Colon controlling). The facts are to the contrary in the case at bar, in which defense counsel twice objected to the government's meetings with the defendant outside her presence, first in a letter to the district court and again at the sentencing hearing. 47 In addition, the fact that appellant's attorney knew her client would be debriefed sometime, but failed to take the initiative to learn the details of time and place, does not establish waiver. The government's affirmative obligation to respect and preserve an accused's election to retain counsel requires it to do more than simply refrain from preventing counsel from being present to assist her client. See Moulton, 474 U.S. at 170-71, 106 S.Ct. at 484-85. Instead, it directs the state to take reasonable steps to facilitate such contact. 48 Here there is no implied waiver. As in the context of the right to counsel, a waiver is valid only when it can be shown from the record that the waiver was made knowingly and intelligently, United States v. Purnett, 910 F.2d 51, 54-55 (2d Cir.1990), and we must indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver, Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 404, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 1242, 51 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977). Silence standing alone is not enough. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1628, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (discussing waiver of Fifth Amendment right to counsel); see also Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 516, 82 S.Ct. 884, 890, 8 L.Ed.2d 70 (1962) (Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible.). Only if silence is joined with some showing that defendant, having comprehended his rights, nonetheless thereafter followed a course of conduct suggesting an abandonment of his entitlement to counsel, may an implied waiver be found. See North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 1757, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979); United States v. Auen, 864 F.2d 4, 5 (2d Cir.1988) (per curiam). Even in such circumstances a defendant's relinquishment may not be presumed; the prosecution is required to prove it. Butler, 441 U.S. at 373, 99 S.Ct. at 1757. Here, defendant's silence and his participation in the debriefing sessions did not constitute waiver. More than a failure to request counsel and subsequent conversations with the prosecutor pursuant to a cooperation agreement are required to find waiver in the debriefing context. 49 For purposes of clarity, it is helpful to explain precisely what is required. Defendant and his counsel should be given reasonable notice of the time and place of the scheduled debriefing so that counsel might be present. A cooperating witness's failure to be accompanied by counsel at debriefing may later be construed as a waiver, providing defendant and counsel have had notice so that the consequences of counsel's failure to attend could be explained to defendant. Cf. Auen, 864 F.2d at 5 (holding that defendant's failure to obtain counsel, despite opportunities to do so, implied a waiver of counsel); United States v. Weninger, 624 F.2d 163, 167 (10th Cir.) (holding that stubborn failure to hire attorney after being told disadvantages constituted waiver of counsel at trial), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1012, 101 S.Ct. 568, 66 L.Ed.2d 470 (1980). Alternatively, waiver can be set forth expressly in the cooperation agreement. Since the issue is not before us, we express no view on the precise extent of what can be waived or the form that such a waiver might take. 50 Moreover, when a defendant is sentenced--unless he specifically alleges that he was denied the assistance of counsel and asks for a hearing on this subject--the issue is waived. This is akin to our rule that a defendant must claim that the prosecutor acted in bad faith before a sentencing court will entertain challenges to the government's decision not to move for a downward departure for substantial assistance under § 5K1.1. See United States v. Khan, 920 F.2d 1100, 1106 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 969, 111 S.Ct. 1606, 113 L.Ed.2d 669 (1991). 51 In sum, what the government may not do is what it did here--conduct debriefing interviews without giving reasonable advance notice to the defendant, through his attorney, in order to permit him to be represented if he so chooses. A cooperation agreement is not a waiver of all of a cooperating witness's rights and protections. As stated earlier, and as this case demonstrates, the cooperating witness is not a strong candidate for sympathy. Hughes, supra, at 40. Such a witness often will receive a lighter sentence than his criminal activity merits. Nonetheless, however one may appraise a cooperating witness's moral worth, we are concerned that by preventing a witness from bringing his attorney to a debriefing interview, the government is expanding its discretion in a way unauthorized by the Guidelines. By not providing the witness in this case the opportunity to bring his retained counsel, the government tipped the balance in its dealings with a cooperating witness in a way that is unseemly, Pinto, 850 F.2d at 935. 52 Further, since the district court explicitly relied on defendant's lack of candor, its sentencing error was not harmless. Plainly, this factor influenced the sentencing court's selection of the sentence. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 203, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1120-21, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992) (holding remand required where consideration of impermissible factors affected length of sentence). Reading the entire record leads us additionally to reject the government's contention that resentencing is unnecessary because the negative comments in the government's § 5K1.1 letter might have been based entirely on defendant's conduct before signing the cooperation agreement and might therefore have constituted a source independent of the alleged illegality. Hence, since defendant was sentenced in violation of law, his sentence must be vacated. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(f)(1). IV Remand For Resentencing 53 Defendant requests that the case, upon remand for resentencing, go before a different judge. This is only done where special circumstances warrant it, that is, where we are persuaded that the original judge would have substantial difficulty in putting out of her mind her previously expressed views, or where reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice. United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8, 10 (2d Cir.1977) (in banc) (per curiam). No special circumstances here suggest reassignment before a different judge and we decline therefore to take such action. 54 Of course, on remand, the government cannot withdraw its § 5K1.1 motion, as that action under the circumstances would be a violation of defendant's due process rights protected by the Fifth Amendment. Cf. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28-29, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2103, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974) (holding that it was not constitutionally permissible for the State to respond to [defendant's] invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo ). 55 Finally, as we have already concluded that defendant should be resentenced, his additional contention that he should be resentenced due to a potential violation of the prosecutor's ethical obligations under either DR 7-104 of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility or the newly promulgated federal regulation on this subject, 28 C.F.R. pt. 77 (1995), need not be addressed.