Opinion ID: 2996966
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intimidation of a Witness

Text: At trial George wanted Amin to testify that he had lied to the grand jury about George’s involvement in the fraud schemes; Amin had already told the FBI a similar story a month earlier. At court, Amin’s attorney advised him that if he testified for George, “there is a strong chance that the government could move to revoke the plea agreement” he had entered into, and a “very real possibility . . . that he could be charged with perjury or false statement.” (Tr. at 1961-62.) The court confirmed the attorney’s concern that, by testifying, Amin would place himself in jeopardy. (Tr. at 1965.) The prosecutor also stated in Amin’s presence, in court: “We count five possible issues for which . . . testimony offered now may concern Mr. Amin: Perjury, false statements, obstruction of justice, . . . the underlying charges and . . . the revocation or a re-sentencing based on conduct within the plea agreement.” (Tr. at 1968). George believes the prosecutor and court acted to intimidate Amin to prevent him from testifying. George’s appeal raises conflicting issues; on the one hand, a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses for his defense. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967). Such a right may be violated if governmental interference prevents a witness from testifying. Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 (1972). However, the defendant’s right is tempered by a witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege not to provide incrimi- 4 Nos. 02-2996 & 02-4000 nating testimony.1 A witness may validly choose not to testify if her testimony would be incriminating, or if it would “furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.” Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 (1951). The issue then is whether the prosecutor’s and court’s warnings were appropriate to protect Amin’s right to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, or whether they were an intimidation tactic employed to interfere with George’s right to call Amin as a witness. We believe that the prosecutor’s and court’s actions were a necessary conveyance of information so as to allow Amin to make an educated decision regarding his Fifth Amendment rights. George refers us to a handful of cases decided over the last forty years by various courts finding a violation when a witness was threatened by a prosecutor, or other official, and as a result did not testify. See, e.g., Webb, 409 U.S. at 97 (finding a violation when a trial judge singled out the sole defense witness, assumed he would lie on the stand and admonished him that if/when he testified falsely he would be prosecuted for perjury and would lose his chance for parole), United States v. Smith, 478 F.2d 976, 979 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (finding violation when an Assistant United States Attorney approached a witness outside of court and told him that if he testified he would be prosecuted as an accessory to murder), United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 479 (4th Cir. 1982) (finding a violation when the prosecutor called the witness’s attorney the day before the witness was to testify to “remind” him that the witness could be re-indicted on related charges). This case is easily distinguishable. In particular, we note that the discussions in question occurred in court, on the 1 The Fifth Amendment provides, “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .” U.S. CONST. amend. V. Nos. 02-2996 & 02-4000 5 record. The warnings contained accurate information about the risks he faced by testifying and were initiated by Amin’s own attorney. United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785, 802 (7th Cir. 1988) (finding no intimidation when witnesses acted on their own attorney’s advice not to testify). The court and prosecutor merely corroborated, in a straightforward and nonthreatening manner, the information given by Amin’s attorney. Given the plainly incriminatory nature of the proposed testimony, it is evident that Amin’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege was well considered.