Opinion ID: 752787
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acceptance of Hullaby's Assertion of His Fifth Amendment Privilege

Text: 15 This court reviews de novo a district court's ruling on a claim of privilege, which involves mixed questions of law and fact. United States v. Rubio-Topete, 999 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1202 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc). 16 The Sixth Amendment provides an accused with the right to compulsory process to secure the attendance of a witness. United States v. Trejo-Zambrano, 582 F.2d 460, 464 (9th Cir.1978). The right to compulsory process does not include the right to compel the witness to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. However, strict standards control the assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination. In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Chesnoff), 13 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). A witness has no Fifth Amendment privilege if his answers could not expose him to a criminal charge. Ullman v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 431, 76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511 (1956). 17 In United States v. Pierce, 561 F.2d 735, 741 (9th Cir.1977), this court held that [a] proper application of this standard requires that the Fifth Amendment claim be raised in response to specific questions propounded by the investigating body. This permits the reviewing court to determine whether a responsive answer might lead to injurious disclosures. Id. (citation omitted). A blanket refusal to answer any question is unacceptable . Id. An exception to Pierce exists where the trial court based on its knowledge of the case and of the testimony expected from the witness, can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions. ' United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 368 (9th Cir.1981) (quoting United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir.1980)). 18 In United States v. Moore, 682 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir.1982), this court held that the district court erred when it accepted a co-defendant's blanket refusal to testify at the defendant's trial when the co-defendant had already pleaded guilty to unlawful receipt of mail despite the possibility of state or other federal prosecution for his role in the mail theft. Id. at 856-57. This court stated that the district court had no special knowledge of either the co-defendant's susceptibility to further criminal prosecution or the nature of his testimony as required to fit under the Pierce exception. Id. at 857. 19 Townsend argues the district court erred in not allowing Townsend to call Hullaby to testify at trial by accepting a blanket refusal to answer any question. Townsend relies upon Moore, arguing that the district court was required to ask a series of specific questions for Hullaby's responses. The court did not require Hullaby, who was not present, to respond to questions after the court accepted the plea. In addition, Townsend contends his situation is very similar to Moore in that the district court had only a general and brief statement from Hullaby admitting his guilt to one count of the indictment. 20 In this case, we conclude that the district court erred in accepting a blanket refusal from Hullaby's attorney without asking specific questions or having extensive knowledge of the case. The district court also erred in allowing Hullaby through his attorney to assert the privilege as to all relevant questions. Hullaby had waived the privilege at least as to the second count of the indictment by pleading guilty to it. See Moore, 682 F.2d at 856; Pierce, 561 F.2d at 738. The specific question Hullaby's attorney objected to, whether Hullaby knew Townsend, may not have called for a privileged answer. 21 Reversal of a conviction is not required, even for a constitutional violation, for an error which is harmless beyond reasonable doubt. See Moore, 682 F.2d at 857-58 (citing Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). The strong evidence against Townsend included consistent eyewitness identifications, the getaway truck being tied to Townsend by its license number; and after similar robberies police finding Townsend with proceeds from the bank. The clear evidence of Townsend's guilt leads us to conclude that the district court's error in accepting Hullaby's assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 22