Opinion ID: 661095
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intimidation of Witness Jaworski

Text: 7 Goshen contends that the district court and the prosecution so intimidated Jaworski, the government's informant and cooperating buyer, that Goshen was denied due process. We disagree. 8 Jaworski was one of the government's key witnesses before the grand jury. When he appeared at trial, however, Jaworski was evasive and equivocating. The prosecution confronted Jaworski with his grand jury testimony but Jaworski, even after reviewing the transcript, denied the accuracy and even the fact of his testimony before the grand jury. At this point the trial judge interrupted the proceedings and dismissed the jury. In the ensuing colloquy, the court warned Jaworski of the dangers of perjury and appointed counsel to confer with him. The following day, after Jaworski had spoken with his attorney, the trial judge painstakingly explained to Jaworski exactly what was expected of him as a sworn witness: 9 If a question is put to you, because you are going to resume the witness stand, and you don't remember and that is the truth, that's what your answer should be. 10 If you don't know the answer and you say you don't remember, that is the same as refusing to testify. And if the Court is persuaded that you know the answer but you give as your answer that I don't remember, the Court may consider holding you in civil contempt. 11