Opinion ID: 758506
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Meyer's Immunity Agreement

Text: 36 Meyer disputes the district court's decision not to suppress his statements given to the FBI pursuant to his use immunity agreement. Under the agreement, Meyer was to provide a complete and truthful statement regarding his knowledge of and involvement in criminal offenses including, but not limited to, controlled substance trafficking. The agreement further stated that the immunity agreement would be void if Meyer provided the government with materially false information or if he intentionally withheld material information at any point in time. In exchange, the government promised not to use any of Meyer's statements or any information he provided against him directly in any criminal prosecution. 37 On appeal, Meyer argues that the district court erred in concluding that his immunity agreement bound him to provide incriminating information against Hoff. We review this factual determination regarding the scope of Meyer's immunity agreement for clear error. See United States v. Nelson, 851 F.2d 976, 978 (7th Cir.1988). We will reverse only if, after a comprehensive review of the evidence, we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. United States v. Duguay, 93 F.3d 346, 349 (7th Cir.1996) (internal quotations and citation omitted). 38 Meyer's agreement expressly required Meyer to make a complete and truthful statement regarding his knowledge of criminal offenses and did not contain any exceptions. Meyer contends that the fact that Agent Southworth allowed Hoff and his attorney to remain in the room during Meyer's interview implicitly modified the agreement in such a way that Meyer was no longer required to provide information that would have incriminated Hoff. For support, Meyer points to Southworth's testimony at the sentencing hearing that he did not ask Meyer any questions about Hoff's criminal activity because he did not think he would get a good answer with Hoff and his attorney sitting in the room. However, while this situation is unusual, it did not necessarily alter the scope of Meyer's agreement. Agent Southworth testified that he had attempted several times to interview Meyer alone, but that Meyer would not agree to it. Additionally, the plain language of the agreement requires complete and truthful testimony, without exception, and this point was emphasized to Meyer at the beginning of the interview. Even if there may be some evidence to support Meyer's view of modification, there is also ample evidence to the contrary. The district court's decision to admit Meyer's statement was not clearly erroneous.