Opinion ID: 3011239
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disclosure of Harrison's Immunity

Text: Serafini claims that the government committed a due process violation during discovery by not disclosing the fact that Harrison had been re-immunized fr om prosecution before his second grand jury appearance. Serafini cites the Supreme Court's decisions in Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States as support for the contention that evidence of this type must be disclosed. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) (stating that due process r equires the government to disclose material exculpatory evidence upon the defendant's request); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154-55 (1972) (stating that the government's failure to disclose a promise of immunity made to a critical witness constituted a due process violation, because evidence of an agreement as to immunity was relevant to the witness's credibility). Serafini claims that the gover nment failed to disclose that Harrison was immunized from pr osecution for perjury, see Serafini Br. at 41, and asserts that defense counsel's cross examination of Harrison at trial would have been different in content and appr oach had the defense been aware of this renewed immunity. The problem with Serafini's claim is that the purported re-immunization consists of nothing mor e than the following exchange in the transcript of Harrison's second appearance before the grand jury: Q: Now, as it was the last time, you are testifying here today under an order of immunity signed by Judge Vanaskie, which requires you to testify despite the existence of any constitutional privilege against self incrimination. That order compels you to testify on _________________________________________________________________ 12. Serafini's citation to United States v. D'Alessio, 822 F. Supp. 1134 (D.N.J. 1993), a case in which the counts of the indictment were very difficult to disentangle, and in which ther e was considerable confusion as to whether the underlying behavior was criminal under New Jersey law, is therefore inapposite. 12 the condition that your testimony may not be used against you in a criminal case. You do not have immunity from perjury or making false statements in your testimony today, do you understand? A: Yes. Q: If you commit perjury, or make a false statement, you can be prosecuted for that perjury or false statement despite the grant of immunity and your testimony here today could be used against you in the prosecution, do you understand? A: Yes. Gov't Suppl. A. at 85. This exchange makes it clear that Harrison's immunity extended only to the underlying conduct about which he testified; Harrison was not immune from a subsequent perjury prosecution in the event that his statements in his second appearance before the grand jury proved to be false. Serafini does not contest the government's assertion that the gover nment turned over the grand jury transcript to defense counsel two weeks before trial -- well before the time that Brady or Giglio would require. See Gov't Br . at 38; Serafini Reply Br. at 36. Because Serafini has not offered evidence of any promises of immunity to Harrison made outside the grand jury proceedings,13 we can find no discovery violation on this record.