Opinion ID: 749900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Governmental Interference with a Witness

Text: 28 Agostino next argues that his rights to due process were violated by governmental interference with a key witness. Agostino asserts that Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Donald Schmid requested that Goetz refrain from speaking with defense counsel about the case. The Government counters that it never instructed Goetz not to speak with defense counsel but instead simply informed Goetz of his right to decline interviews with the defense. 29 [T]he inability of a defendant to interview witnesses is a constitutional problem only if the state artificially restricted the defendant's ability to obtain evidence. United States v. DeRobertis, 766 F.2d 270, 274 (7th Cir.1985). Since a witness is free to decide whether to grant an interview with defense counsel, see United States v. Bowens, 318 F.2d 828, 829 (7th Cir.1963); see also United States v. Pinto, 755 F.2d 150, 152 (10th Cir.1985); United States v. Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082, 1092 (5th Cir.1982), reversal on the ground of governmental interference with a witness requires a clear showing that the government instructed the witness not to cooperate with the defendant. United States v. White, 454 F.2d 435, 439 (7th Cir.1971). 30 As identified by the district court, the threshold question is whether Agostino has clearly shown the Government instructed Goetz not to discuss the case with defense counsel. In support of its claim, Agostino cites to a letter dated November 26, 1996 from Goetz's counsel, David P. Jones, to defense counsel. The letter states, in pertinent part: After Mr. Goetz's Grand Jury testimony, U.S. Attorney Schmid asked Mr. Goetz, as a courtesy, not to discuss his testimony. Attorney Schmid made it clear that he had no authority to command Mr. Goetz not to talk nor could he prevent Mr. Goetz from speaking about what happened. Jones also testified during a hearing on the issue in a manner that echoed the statements in his letter of November 26, 1996. Defense counsel argues that the letter and attorney Jones's testimony, coupled with the fact that Goetz refused to participate in interviews with defense counsel, establish that AUSA Schmid instructed Goetz not to speak with defense counsel in contravention of applicable case law. 31 The Government responds with a letter of its own, written the day after the letter proffered by Agostino. On November 27, 1996, the following statement was transmitted to Goetz from AUSA Schmid: 32 You told me that you had indicated to your lawyer that you did not wish to meet with [defense counsel]. Let me reiterate what I told you. I told you that it was up to you whether you choose to meet with ... any of Mr. Agostino's defense lawyers. While you are free to meet with them, I told you that you had no obligation to meet with them. The choice is entirely yours. 33 Even were we to credit Agostino's version of events, however, he has not clearly shown that the Government violated his rights to due process. The characterization of Schmid's actions in the November 26 Jones letter suggests that, in the worst light, Schmid requested that Goetz not speak to anyone about his testimony. Governmental interference occurs when the Government instructs the witness not to speak, see White, 454 F.2d at 439, or artificially restricts defense counsel access to the witness. See DeRobertis, 766 F.2d at 274. The one line characterization of Schmid's actions in Jones's letter is a far cry from the clear showing that the government instructed the witness not to cooperate with the defendant, White, 454 F.2d at 439, that is required for reversal on the grounds of governmental interference. Agostino has failed to make the requisite showing to establish a violation of his rights to due process.