Opinion ID: 217641
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Motion to Dismiss Indictment Stemming from Allegedly Immunized Statements

Text: Mr. Fishman argues that he believed that his substantial cooperation with the investigating authorities, including his taking certain actions which he was assured were viewed as good faith conduct, would implicitly provide him with immunity from prosecution. He accordingly filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment because it was based on statements he had made before the grand jury and/or to authorities in other contexts, which he claims were effectively immunized because of that substantial cooperation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court denied the motion, stating: Defendant's subjective belief that he would not be prosecuted simply because he cooperated with the investigation was unreasonable, and he has not made a prima facie showing that he had any type of agreement with investigators or the United States Attorney's office that would prevent him from being charged with a crime in this case. . . . There is no credible evidence that defendant had an express or implied immunity agreement, nor is there any evidence that defendant entered an agreement with the United States Attorney's office to reduce or eliminate his potential criminal liability. Op. & Order at 11, R. Vol. 1, Part 2 at 216. [6] We review the district court's decision whether to dismiss an indictment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Alcaraz-Arellano, 441 F.3d 1252, 1265 (10th Cir.2006). Congress has authorized the grant of use immunity to those persons ordered to testify before a grand jury. United States v. Lacey, 86 F.3d 956, 972 (10th Cir.1996). However, [T]he United States attorney and his superiors have the sole power to apply for immunity. United States v. Serrano, 406 F.3d 1208, 1217 (10th Cir.2005). If a defendant shows that he or she has been compelled to testify under a grant of use immunity about a matter relevant to his or her prosecution, the burden then shifts to the government to demonstrate that `all of the evidence it proposes to use was derived from legitimate independent sources.' Id. (quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 461-62, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972)). Mr. Fishman claims he did, in effect, testify under a grant of use immunity, so he argues the government must prove that all of the evidence it used to convict him was derived from legitimate independent sources. We disagree. In this case, it is clear that Mr. Fishman did not invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse to testify before the grand jury. And, despite his many allusions to immunity, it is also clear that no one with the authority to grant him use immunity did so. While he claims he thought asserting his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was merely a formality, the reality is that his silence regarding that right indicates he waived it and testified without the benefit of an immunity agreement. Mr. Fishman also emphasizes Agent Chapa's statement that he would be demonstrating good faith by returning the bonds to the authorities; but that falls far short of an expression of immunity. Agent Chapa made it clear, in any event, that he lacked authority to grant immunity. The district court accordingly did not err in refusing to dismiss the indictment, or in permitting Mr. Fishman's grand jury testimony to be admitted at trial.