Opinion ID: 582485
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Benary's Immunized Grand Jury Testimony

Text: 48 Benary argues that the district court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his motion for a new trial based on his immunized grand jury testimony. The decision whether to grant a motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lopez, 803 F.2d 969, 977 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1030 (1987). [T]he district court's finding that the government's evidence was untainted by a grant of immunity is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Lipkis, 770 F.2d 1447, 1450 (9th Cir.1985). 49 In 1982, Benary, under a grant of judicial immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002, appeared before a grand jury in the Eastern District of New York investigating former Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan. On the morning of sentencing in this case, Benary filed a supplemental and expanded motion for new trial claiming that it is entirely possible, if not probable, that [the immunized testimony] has been used to formulate the basis of the prosecution of the instant case in violation of the immunity order. Attached to the motion were two affidavits, one by Benary and one by Anthony Gallagher, who appeared before the New York grand jury with Benary. The district court faulted Benary's failure to raise the issue earlier and found no material connection between Gallagher's affidavit and the matters raised at trial. 50 Benary claims that the district court should have unsealed his immunized testimony and conducted an in camera inspection to determine whether the Government utilized the fruits of Benary's immunized testimony as a nexus in gathering the evidence to investigate and subsequently prosecute him. He relies on Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 461-62 (1972). Yet Kastigar itself holds that immunity from use and derivative use [under 18 U.S.C. § 6002] is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 453. In general, the privilege against self-incrimination only prohibits compelled testimony that might incriminate a witness for crimes he had already committed, or was in the process of committing, at the time the testimony was given. United States v. Harvey, 869 F.2d 1439, 1446 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc). Although the Fifth Amendment privilege is not entirely inapplicable to prospective acts, Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (1968), the person seeking to invoke the privilege must show substantial and 'real,' and not merely trifling or imaginary, hazards of incrimination for future conduct. Id. at 53. Such a showing is rarely made. Harvey, 869 F.2d at 1447-48; see also United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 606-07 (1971) (refusing to give Self-Incrimination Clause interpretation which protects a person against incrimination not only against past or present transgressions but which supplies insulation for a career of crime about to be launched). 51 Benary's activities in connection with Tracon began after he testified before the New York grand jury. 5 He fails to suggest how he could have invoked the Fifth Amendment before the grand jury on the basis of a substantial and 'real'  risk, Marchetti, 390 U.S. at 53, that his testimony would incriminate his actions in connection with a company of which he had no knowledge at the time. Because he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment before the 1982 New York grand jury with respect to his future Tracon activities, his 1982 immunity, which is coextensive with his Fifth Amendment rights, cannot protect him from his subsequent prosecution for these activities. See United States v. Harvey, 900 F.2d 1253, 1258 (8th Cir.1990) ([A]ny transactional immunity Harvey received in 1980 is irrelevant to a prosecution for a tax conspiracy that began in 1982.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 754 (1991); United States v. Seltzer, 794 F.2d 1114, 1120 (6th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1054 (1987). Accordingly, the district court correctly denied Benary's motion for a new trial without holding a Kastigar hearing. 52