Opinion ID: 158887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Singleton Issue

Text: Defendant next contends the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the testimony of witnesses who may have been promised a reduced charge or prosecutorial immunity if they testified against him. Relying on United States v. Singleton , 144 F.3d 1343 (10th Cir. 1998), he claims any such promises were in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), which prohibits bribery of witnesses. Defendant acknowledges that Singleton was vacated and later superceded on rehearing by this court’s en banc ruling that § 201 does not prohibit a prosecutor, acting as an agent of the government, from making “a concession normally granted by the government in exchange for testimony.” United States v. Singleton , 165 F.3d 1297, 1302 (10th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied , 119 S. Ct. 2371 (1999). Defendant admits that he raised this claim merely to preserve this issue pending certiorari review of the Singleton case by the Supreme Court. The Court has now denied certiorari in Singleton , and we are bound by this court’s en banc opinion.