Opinion ID: 1898380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Was the witness cooperation agreement between prisoner Pettigrew and the prosecution an invitation to perjury denying defendant a fair trial and due process of law?

Text: In State v. Fort, 101 N.J. 123, 501 A. 2d 140 (1985), we held that a no testimony plea agreement violated codefendants' constitutional rights to due process and to present witnesses in their favor. We found such an agreement contrary to the fundamental purpose of trial, because its effect was to suppress the truth by sealing the lips of witnesses. Id. at 131, 501 A. 2d 140. Here, however, according to the State, Pettigrew was asked not to keep silent but to testify truthfully. Pettigrew was promised that if he furnished, and testified to, helpful information, his cooperation would be made known to the judge deciding his application for sentence reduction. Defendant contends that the agreement invited perjury by offering reward for desired testimony. Pettigrew received the reward two weeks after defendant's conviction, when on December 5, 1985, Pettigrew's thirty-five-year sentence for armed robbery was reduced by half and his parole disqualifier vacated. Defendant's objection is not based on any failure to disclose. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed. 2d 104 (1972) (nondisclosure of immunity agreement, affecting witness's credibility, violated due process). The State disclosed the agreement to the defense in discovery and to the jury during Pettigrew's direct examination. Defense counsel expanded on its implications during cross-examination and in closing argument. Nor is the objection based on any contingency of result expressed in the agreement. See discussion in United States v. Waterman, 732 F. 2d 1527 (8th Cir.1984) (holding that admission of testimony of accomplice whose plea agreement was contingent on outcome violated due process), vacated, 732 F. 2d at 1533 ( en banc ), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1065, 105 S.Ct. 2138, 85 L.Ed. 2d 496 (1985). The agreement expressed no such contingency. Certainly a witness-cooperation agreement, like a plea agreement, provides inducement to testify favorably, but the risk of perjury must be balanced against the potential contribution of truthful testimony. See United States v. Dailey, 759 F. 2d 192 (1st Cir.1985) (risk of perjury created by accomplice's plea agreements insufficient to violate due process). Courts routinely admit testimony by witnesses who have entered into agreements with the State. See, e.g., Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed. 2d 374 (1966) (admission of testimony by paid government informer did not violate constitutional rights). Disclosure enables procedural safeguards, allowing the veracity of a witness to be tested by cross-examination, and the credibility of his testimony to be determined by a properly instructed jury. Id. at 311, 87 S.Ct. at 418, 77 L.Ed. 2d at 387. Here the court instructed the jury on credibility: You get people up here who tell you things that you may find just aren't  are inherently unbelievable.    Did they have something to gain? Did they have something to lose? On conviction of crime it charged: It's a credibility problem.    Pettigrew and Turner and whoever else.    You may not want to believe him as much as you want to believe somebody who had not [been convicted]. Of course, also with Turner and Pettigrew, the assertion is made by the defense that it's not only that aspect of credibility, but because they have contact with the law and had cases pending and have been sentenced and whatnot, that they're really testifying to things they testified to because they had received favors and you want to consider that and whether you accept that proposition and how it affects their judgment. So that's conviction of crime. Based on the disclosure of the witness-cooperation agreement during direct testimony, cross-examination, and jury instructions, we find no violation of due process or denial of fair trial in the agreement between Pettigrew and the State.