Opinion ID: 172381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Factual Basis of Mr. Burke's Appeal

Text: Before trial, Mr. Burke filed a motion seeking the disclosure of any immunity agreements between the Government and any informants that it planned to call to the stand. The district court ordered the release of this information, and the government acknowledged its responsibility to comply. The government failed to disclose, however, that Teddy Corbett was testifying pursuant to an informal plea agreement reached before trial. Under the accommodation reached between the government and Mr. Corbett, the government agreed not to charge Mr. Corbett with any federal crimes in exchange for his cooperation. See Aplt. Br. 17. The government's failure to divulge the immunity agreement was compounded by the fact that the prosecutor, Kenneth Marken, even initially affirmatively elicited testimony at trial that there was no such agreement. Mr. Marken asked Corbett: Are you here pursuant to any kind of plea agreement? Mr. Corbett responded: No. R. V 410. The prosecutor made no attempt to correct this misstatement, even though he was the one who had negotiated the agreement with Mr. Corbett. Later during Mr. Corbett's direct testimony, however, the existence of his plea agreement was brought to light. MR. MARKEN: Okay. Now, you gave an interview as part of your plea agreement  MR. CORBETT: Uh-huh. R. V 421-22. Defense counsel immediately objected and moved that the witness be excluded and his testimony disregarded by the jury on the basis that the defense had not been informed that the witness had a plea agreement. R. V 423. When the government acknowledged that there was, in fact, an informal understanding that Mr. Corbett would receive federal immunity for his cooperation, defense counsel responded only by arguing that the existence of the immunity agreement suggested Mr. Corbett's strong bias. Id. The judge refused to strike the witness on this basis and instead directed Mr. Burke to deal with this issue on cross-examination. Id. Mr. Burke's second claim of error follows from the court's suppression of his line of questioning against Joe Wilson. Mr. Wilson testified that Mr. Burke was present at the residence on occasions when he purchased methamphetamine from Mr. Johnston. Mr. Burke attempted to impeach Mr. Wilson's testimony on cross-examination by revealing that Mr. Wilson was presently under federal indictment. See Aplt. Br. 26. In particular, he attempted to show that the same prosecutor now questioning him in Mr. Burke's case had previously prosecuted Mr. Wilson in a previous state matter and bore responsibility for his current federal indictment. Id. The government raised an objection under Fed.R.Evid. 609, claiming that the questioning constituted [i]mproper impeachment. R. V 444. The court sustained the objection. Mr. Burke now argues that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.