Opinion ID: 562667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: prosecutorial misconduct (davis)

Text: 50 Davis moves on to argue that the prosecutor who tried his case engaged in misconduct by deterring a defense witness from testifying on his behalf. The witness was Sam Bennett, a vice president at a St. Louis bank which made purchase-money loans to Davis' parishioners and others Davis referred to him. According to Davis, Bennett would have testified that he allowed Davis to co-sign these loans when they were made to individuals Davis sent to see him. Bennett's testimony, Davis alleges, would have established that these loans represented a substantial source of deposits into the bank accounts at issue in the money laundering counts, defeating the inference that these funds were derived from drug sales. When Bennett arrived at the courthouse to testify, he was ushered into the judge's chambers, where the three defense lawyers, the prosecutor, and the trial judge were waiting. After Bennett was sworn, the prosecutor advised him that he was the target of an ongoing federal investigation into bank fraud. The prosecutor told Bennett--who was not accompanied by counsel--that the questions he would be asked might touch upon the subject of that investigation, and advised him that any testimony he gave in Davis' trial could be used against him later. Bennett chose not to testify, and Davis did not, so far as the record reflects, seek to have him subpoenaed. 51 On appeal, Davis argues that the prosecutor intimidated Bennett into silence, depriving Davis of helpful testimony in violation of his right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense which is a fundamental element of due process of law. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967); see also Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98, 93 S.Ct. 351, 353, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (per curiam ) (trial judge's threatening remarks to defense witness violated defendant's right to due process). The government responds that Bennett was not intimidated, but was merely advised of the ongoing investigation and allowed to reconsider his decision to testify in light of that inquiry. 52 Situations like Mr. Bennett's appearance at the courthouse call upon prosecutors to walk a narrow path. On the one hand, Webb cautions that [s]ubstantial government interference with a defense witness' free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 703 (5th Cir.1980); see also United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1334 (D.C.Cir.1982) (The constitutional right of a criminal defendant to call witnesses in his defense mandates that they be free to testify without fear of governmental retaliation.). On the other hand, ethical duties require prosecutors to warn unrepresented witnesses of the risk that the testimony they are about to give may be used against them. See United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 934 & n. 1 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 867, 932, 109 S.Ct. 174, 323, 102 L.Ed.2d 143, 341 (1988) (ABA Standards for the Administration of Criminal Justice Sec. 3-3.2(b) requires prosecutor to  'advise the witness concerning possible self-incrimination and the possible need for counsel.' ). 53 A prosecutor faced with the prospect of an unrepresented defense witness who may be asked to provide self-incriminating testimony can do no more than to advise the witness of the risks he may bring upon himself, presenting this advice in a manner calculated to engender informed and uncoerced decisionmaking on the part of the witness. Where the prosecutor simply provides the witness with a truthful warning, no constitutional violation occurs. Blackwell, 694 F.2d at 1335 (D.C.Cir.1982). Where, however, the substance of what the prosecutor communicates to the witness is a threat over and above what the record indicate[s] was timely, necessary, and appropriate, the inference that the prosecutor sought to coerce a witness into silence is strong. United States v. Simmons, 670 F.2d 365, 369 (D.C.Cir.1982). 54 We believe that the prosecutor's communication with Bennett in this case were closer to a truthful warning than to the highly intimidating statements, United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 227 (3d Cir.1976), excessive in number and badgering in tone or phrasing, United States v. Silverstein, 732 F.2d 1338, 1345 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1111, 105 S.Ct. 792, 83 L.Ed.2d 785 (1985), and obviously threatening, Simmons, 670 F.2d at 368, that past cases have identified as so coercive as to raise constitutional concerns. The encounter took place in the presence of the district judge as well as all counsel, a setting which limited the potential for threats and overreaching intended to deter Mr. Bennett from testifying. The prosecutor's statements for the most part simply presented Bennett with the facts, informing him that he was the target of an ongoing federal fraud investigation and warning him that it was possible that he would be asked questions that would concern the subject of that investigation. Tr. at 797-98. It is true that certain of the prosecutor's statements might better have been left unsaid, such as the warning to Bennett that if he testified the prosecutor would make sure that the FBI officers investigating the possible fraud at Bennett's bank were present in the courtroom. Tr. at 798. This statement, however, like other similar statements, were objected to by defense counsel and were addressed by the district court, which stepped in to present a more dispassionate and detached view of the risks Bennett might bring upon himself by testifying. Viewing the encounter as a whole we cannot say that Bennett was preclude[d] ... from making a free and voluntary choice whether or not to testify. Webb, 409 U.S. at 98, 93 S.Ct. at 353.