Opinion ID: 608725
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal of Immunity to Defense Witness

Text: 20 Roger LeMaux was a named defendant against whom the charges were dropped just prior to trial. Several of the government witnesses testified to events at which Roger was allegedly present. The defense called Roger to rebut some of this testimony but he invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination while on the stand. The government refused to extend use immunity to Roger so that he might testify, and the court refused to compel the offer of immunity. 21 The government may only be compelled to extend immunity where the fact-finding process is intentionally distorted, denying the defendant a fair trial. United States v. Westerdahl, 945 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.1991). The defendant must prove both that the witness's testimony is relevant and that the government distorted the fact-finding process by denying immunity. Id. 22 Where the potential witness offers testimony to directly rebut that produced by the government through immunized witnesses or those testifying because of a plea bargain, the government must offer immunity to the defense witness to avoid distorting the fact-finding process. Westerdahl, 945 F.2d at 1087. Where the government has distorted the fact-finding process, we must then determine whether the defendants have been denied their due process rights. 23 The defense sought the testimony of Roger LeMaux to rebut that presented by government witness Peter Newton that Kimbel LeMaux paid him $200,000 in cash for the wood rights to property owned by Newton. Newton did not testify with the benefit of immunity or a plea bargain. Under Westerdahl there was no distortion of the fact-finding process as to Roger Lemaux's proffered testimony concerning Peter Newton. 24 Roger LeMaux was also called to testify to contradict Gus Sand's testimony that he had delivered cocaine to Roger and Inrig at a LeMaux safehouse in Santa Rosa. Unlike Newton, Sand's testimony was given pursuant to a plea agreement. Under Westerdahl, remand is generally appropriate for a hearing in the district court to determine whether the defendants received a fair trial. Westerdahl, 945 F.2d at 1087. The circumstances of this case are unusual, however, and allow us to consider whether the defendants were denied their rights as a matter of law at this time. The contradiction between Sand's testimony and that proffered for Roger scarcely approaches the nature of the conflict which prompted a remand in Westerdahl. Considering the extensive evidence of numerous drug transactions involving each of the defendants, the failure to offer Roger immunity does not meet the Westerdahl standard. The defendants were not denied a fair trial.