Opinion ID: 687340
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Agent Gauthier's declaration.

Text: 30 As the district court specifically noted in its synopsis of the declarations, Agent Gauthier was involved in the Reese investigation, but also later accompanied Agent Morris of the Weiner investigation team when she interviewed witnesses involved in the real property transactions. The Montoyas contend that this demonstrates overlap and therefore establishes taint. However, Gauthier's declaration states that he never interviewed Montoya or his wife, never reviewed or discussed any reports of [the] interview of Montoya or transcripts of his testimony, and had not had anyone impart[ ] to [him] any information purportedly derived from Montoya's statements. Furthermore, Gauthier explained his motivation to accompany Agent Morris as follows: 31 In July and November 1989 I accompanied Agent Linda Morris in a number of interviews of witnesses involved in certain real estate transactions she was investigating. Agent Morris did most of the questioning. I was motivated to accompany her by the hope that I could obtain information concerning drug trafficking suspects whose whereabouts remained unknown to us at the time. 32 Agent Morris explained in her declaration that sometime after May 19, 1989, she told Agent Gauthier of her findings involving the Montoyas and two businesses, and Gauthier informed her that in August 1988, search warrants had been served on the businesses and two properties belonging to Montoya. Gauthier did not mention that Montoya had been interviewed. Morris confirmed that she and Gauthier interviewed a number of people identified with the property transactions in question, but also stated that she had never been given any information by anyone concerning Montoya's interviews and testimony. 8 33 Agent Gauthier was never exposed to Montoya's immunized testimony. The fact that this Reese investigation team member attended a number of witness interviews with a member of the Weiner investigation team does not demonstrate that the immunized testimony was in any way used to build a case against Montoya. See Crowson, 828 F.2d at 1430. 34