Opinion ID: 698319
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cave's Subject Status

Text: 11 There is no question that Cave became a subject of the OIC's investigation when he received a letter from OIC on August 5, 1991, specifically advising him that his status was that of a subject of the investigation. The Department of Justice in its Evaluation of George Cave's Application For Attorneys' Fees, however, rightly brings up the concern as to whether Cave remained a subject of the investigation after he was granted use immunity in connection with his August 30, 1991 appearance before the grand jury. 12 In assessing the effect of use immunity on an individual's subject status, this Court in Dutton noted that [t]he federal use immunity statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002, confers immunity only against the use of the testimony compelled under the immunizing order; 'it does not confer transactional immunity under which the witness could not be prosecuted at all for the transaction about which he testifies.'  Dutton, 11 F.3d at 1078-79, citing United States v. Poindexter, 859 F.2d 216, 219 (D.C.Cir.1988) (citation omitted). We concluded in Dutton that 13 an individual who would otherwise qualify as a subject of an independent counsel investigation does not automatically lose that status (and his right to seek reimbursement of attorneys' fees) merely because the independent counsel exercises his discretion to obtain use immunity for that individual in order to secure his testimony against others. 14 Dutton, 11 F.3d at 1078-79. The use immunity statute provides a sweeping proscription of any use, direct, or indirect, of the compelled testimony and any information derived therefrom ... Pillsbury Company v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 103 S.Ct. 608, 74 L.Ed.2d 430 (1983) (citation omitted). And, once a defendant establishes that he has testified under a grant of immunity, 'the prosecution [has] the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony.'  Pillsbury, 459 U.S. at 255, 103 S.Ct. at 613, quoting Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 460, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1665, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The proper test in determining whether Cave remained a subject after he was granted use immunity is whether the grand jury was examining conduct of his in a way that would lead a reasonably counseled person at the time of incurring the fees to believe that there was a realistic possibility that he would become a defendant. Dutton, 11 F.3d at 1079. After examining the sealed documents provided to us, we find that the grant of use immunity did not protect Cave from the realistic possibility that he would become a defendant because the information he provided to the grand jury could have been derived from two to four other witnesses, thus providing the government with a wholly independent source for the testimony if it chose to pursue charges against Cave. We therefore conclude that Cave remained a subject of the investigation even after he was granted use immunity and continued to be a subject until the investigation closed. 1