Opinion ID: 488727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Testimony About Plea Agreements

Text: 47 Another argument made for the first time on appeal is that the court erred by allowing the prosecution's witnesses to testify about plea agreements they had made with the government. This contention also fails. 48 The government's chief witnesses were Pierce and Christiansen. On direct examination, the government asked them if they had entered into a cooperation agreement with the government. Pierce answered that she had agreed to plead guilty to two drug-related charges, but that nothing had been promised in return. Christiansen said he had been promised immunity if he cooperated. No questions were asked on direct examination about Pierce's or Christiansen's promises to testify truthfully. On cross-examination, however, Munson's counsel asked the witnesses about their agreements and made inquiries into lies they had told in the past. Then, on redirect, the government elicited from the two that part of their agreements was to testify truthfully. 49 Responses were elicited on direct examination of the subsequent seven witnesses that part of their agreements with the government was to testify truthfully. According to the government, this was done after it appeared all but inevitable that [the witnesses'] credibility would be attacked, in the same way as Christiansen and Pierce, because of their respective agreements. 50 These references to promises to testify truthfully do not constitute plain error. We recently rejected an argument that informing the jury of the contents of a plea agreement of, at least, normal stripe is error. United States v. Martin, 815 F.2d 818, 821 (1st Cir.1987). A defendant may be denied a fair trial if the prosecution portrays itself as a guarantor of truthfulness by making personal assurances that the witness is telling the truth or by implicitly vouching for the witness by indicating that information not heard as evidence supports the testimony. Id. at 821. The government's narrow questions about whether these witnesses agreed to tell the truth were not such portrayals. 51 The government's first two witnesses--who provided the most damaging evidence--were subjected to vigorous cross-examination. Defense counsel attacked their credibility and established that they were testifying because of an arrangement they had made with the government. The government did not act improperly when it responded by asking about their promises to tell the truth. See United States v. Dukes, 727 F.2d 34, 43 (2d Cir.1984). For subsequent witnesses, the government may have been rash in initiating the inquiry into the promises to testify truthfully. Such anticipation could lead to error if the government ends up bolstering the witnesses' testimony even though the defense did not want to make an issue of the agreements. But as the Fifth Circuit has said: 52 Typically, the fact that a government witness has made a plea bargain with respect to the events at issue is a matter which the defense desires to heavily emphasize as adversely affecting the witness' credibility, giving him an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the defendant. If the terms of the plea bargain are proper, ... then certainly it is appropriate for the government to respond by asserting that the agreement provides an incentive to tell the truth rather than to lie. Nor is it reasonable that the government be made to appear as if it were hiding the plea agreement or its terms by being prevented from mentioning them until they are first brought out by the defense, at least assuming that the defense does not waive the right to bring those matters out. Normally, if the agreement is gone into, all proper terms relevant to the witness' motive may be disclosed. 53 United States v. Binker, 795 F.2d 1218, 1225 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 1287, 94 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987). 54 The court instructed the jury that when it judged the credibility of witnesses who had entered into plea agreements, it may consider these agreements and the hopes that those witnesses may have for future advantages, and should evaluate their testimony very carefully. In the light of this admonition, there was little risk that the government's questions about the plea agreements resulted in the witnesses being given undue credibility. There certainly was no plain error.