Opinion ID: 2632549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Interviews, Grand Jury Subpoenas, and Immunity

Text: Defendants claim that the affidavit's discussion of these techniques completely ignore[s] the possibility of a confession being obtained, perhaps based upon a promise of leniency as well as the potential of detaining a material witness in custody, which might solve the problem of tipping off others with specific information. In truth, the affidavit considered the possibility that a high-level member of the organization might provide information in exchange for leniency but considered it unlikely because of fear of retribution against himself or his family. Special Agent Diederich considered it more likely that the conspirator who received such an offer would inform other members of the organization and thus jeopardize the investigation. Neither a promise of leniency nor the detention of a material witness in custody would alleviate these concerns. Moreover, granting immunity to an organization member who was at a sufficiently high level to provide significant information would insulate highly culpable members of the conspiracy from prosecution. ( U.S. v. Martinez, supra, 452 F.3d at p. 5.) The government's desire not to alert any of the targets of the investigation is reasonable. ( U.S. v. Carrillo, supra, 123 F.Supp.2d at p. 1236.)