Opinion ID: 1271600
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Merits: Inherent Authority.

Text: We begin by noting aspects of these cases which are not at issue here. [6] It is uncontested that, were the subject offers of immunity authorized by and made pursuant to statute, they would be constitutionally sufficient to compel testimony despite a Fifth Amendment claim. [7] It is also uncontested that there is no Alaska statutory provision authorizing such promises of immunity. Thus, we deal here not with a constitutional question, nor with one of statutory interpretation. Rather, it is our task to explicate the common law which we will apply in these situations unless and until the Alaska legislature acts to modify it. [8] Initially, we note that we have recently emphasized the wide discretion afforded to prosecutors under our system in making the critical decision whether to institute criminal proceedings in a particular case. Burke v. State, 624 P.2d 1240, 1246 (Alaska 1980). [9] This same observation applies, of course, to a decision not to bring action in a particular case. Also, we note that the ability of prosecutors to offer immunity in exchange for testimony has generally been regarded as a necessary and beneficial aspect of our criminal justice system. Those courts which have prohibited non-statutorily authorized grants of immunity have lamented the fact that their conclusion greatly hobbles the criminal justice system: Situations such as that with which the prosecution is faced in cases like the present demonstrate the crying need of appropriate enabling legislation, either in and of itself affording the immunity in question as to prosecution for all crimes in which his testimony tends to incriminate him; or, perhaps better still, authorizing the district attorney and the court, under proper safeguards, to extend immunity whenever the proper administration of the criminal law demands it. Apodaca v. Viramontes, 53 N.M. 513, 212 P.2d 425, 430 (1949). Commentators have also emphasized the salutary effect of allowing prosecutors to exchange immunity for testimony: As indicated, the main reason for refusing enforcement of non-statutory promises of immunity is the judicial fear that the government's right and duty to prosecute would be bargained away. But this attitude seems to be outmoded and out of touch with practical realities. First, the wide use of statutory immunities shows the acceptance of this device as a proper means of law enforcement. Insofar as the government's right to prosecute is concerned, it is of no consequence whether the immunity was effected through statutory means or through an informal procedure since the same result would follow. In failing to enforce the non-statutory promises of immunity, the courts should not hide behind the statement that the prosecutor has no inherent power to grant immunity and therefore the agreements are not binding. The proper procedure is to adopt administrative controls in the prosecutor's office which would prevent unauthorized actions rather than ride roughshod over the defendant's rights in an attempt to avoid the abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Comment, Judicial Supervision of Non-Statutory Immunity, 65 J.Crim.L. & Criminology 334, 344 (1974). Surina cites us to many cases which support the position that, in the absence of statutory authorization, any prosecutorial grant of immunity is invalid and cannot be made the basis of compelling her testimony. The state argues that modern notions of due process would bind the prosecution to its immunity promises made in return for the surrender of the privilege against self-incrimination, and that if the immunity is constitutionally sufficient, there is no reason why the testimony should not be compelled. The state also emphasizes that the issue arose in the context of cross-examination, and thus the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to confrontation are also implicated. [10] There is a considerable amount of authority supporting appellant's argument. However, for several reasons, we find the underlying logic of these authorities inapplicable here. Many of the cases cited are simply not on point. For example, several, although they back appellant's position in dicta, arose in the context of a defendant objecting to the prosecutor's deal with a prosecution witness. Although noting that the promise may have been unauthorized by statute, the actual holding of these cases was that the privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the witness and cannot be claimed by the defendant. [11] A close reading of the case law that is on point reveals five arguments which are cited in support of the majority rule. We will consider each point separately. The first point emphasized in most of the case law, and all of the commentary, is the great weight of authority on appellant's side. [12] Initially, we note that the authority is not as uniform as the commentators would have it. [13] Secondarily, for the reasons outlined below, we regard the authority as based upon premises which are no longer valid, or are inapplicable under Alaskan procedure. Although we do not regard the weight of authority lightly, we conclude that it does not compel a decision in accordance with it here. The second point, the most compelling argument, is that the prosecution cannot guarantee that its part of the bargain will be kept (i.e., that the immunity will be efficacious), and therefore to mandate a waiver of constitutional right in return for such a slim promise is unconscionable. This is well-expressed in several leading cases, one being Apodaca v. Viramontes, 212 P.2d at 429 (N.M. 1949), quoting Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892 (1881): No implied suggestion by the court, nor any implied or positive promise by the commonwealth's attorney, could operate as an indemnity to the witness that he would not be further prosecuted. He had a right to stand upon his constitutional privilege, and not to trust to the chances of a further prosecution. The court, of course, could offer him no such indemnity. Nor could the commonwealth's attorney, for he might die, or be removed, or resign, and his successor might see fit to institute a prosecution against him. And in Doyle v. Hofstader, 257 N.Y. 244, 177 N.E. 489, 497 (1931), then Chief Judge Cardozo of the New York Court of Appeals said: The witness is within his privilege in insisting that the basis for his immunity shall be something more substantial than the grace or favor of the prosecutor who may bring him to the bar of justice... . To uphold a finding that his conduct amounted to a contempt it must appear that in refusing to answer he was violating a legal, and not merely a moral obligation. The immunity like the obligation must have its source and sanction in the law. Compelling as this logic was when its premise was valid, we believe that removal of its basic assumption reverses the result. For we are of the view that, as a matter of both federal and state due process, a prosecutor's promise of immunity made in return for a surrender of the privilege against self-incrimination is binding on the prosecution. Earlier cases held that unauthorized promises on the part of prosecutors would give rise, not to an absolute right of entitlement on the part of the defendant, but only to an equitable right which could be taken into account at sentencing. Sometimes this was expressed in terms of leniency in the sentence itself, and sometimes merely in a stay of the sentence during which the defendant could apply for executive clemency. Either way, its fulfillment was clearly discretionary on the part of the authorities, even though the individual had complied fully with his part of the bargain. The leading case on point was United States v. Ford, 99 U.S. 594, 25 L.Ed. 399 (1879), which adopted this view based on an extensive review of English law on the subject. Modern notions of due process have belied the notion that a prosecutor may invoke his discretion to evade promises made to a defendant or potential defendant as part of an agreement or bargain. In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), the United States Supreme Court dealt with this issue in the context of plea bargaining. In that case, the prosecution promised to make no sentence recommendation, in exchange for the defendant's guilty plea; but the prosecutor inadvertently breached this agreement at sentencing. The Supreme Court held that the prosecutor's reneging on his part of the plea bargain agreement required either that the defendant be given an opportunity to withdraw his plea (and thus recover his right to trial), or that specific performance of the promise be mandated. Id. at 263, 92 S.Ct. at 499, 30 L.Ed.2d at 433. We think that this logic applies with equal force to the privilege against self-incrimination. If a prosecutorial promise of immunity is made, it cannot be breached without allowing the promisee an opportunity to reconsider and revoke his part of the bargain. [14] The case law appears to support this notion. In In Re Kelly, 350 F. Supp. 1198 (E.D.Ark. 1972), the court justified its own contempt citation for the defendant's refusing to testify, after a non-statutorily authorized promise of immunity by the United States Attorney, using the following reasoning: [W]here the government has informed a witness and the court that such witness will not be prosecuted on the basis of any testimony given before the grand jury, neither that testimony nor the fruits of that testimony may subsequently be used against him. He receives in effect use immunity from prosecution. .... Upon a finding by the court that this promise has been made by a U.S. Attorney, the witness is in no danger of prosecution as the result of his compelled testimony and he has in effect been immunized. This immunity derives from inherent prosecutorial discretion as exercised daily. No court could permit the U.S. Attorney or the Justice Department to renege on such a promise even if not specifically authorized by act of congress or supervisors in the Justice Department without running afoul of constitutional principles. [footnotes omitted] 350 F. Supp. at 1199-1200. Several Circuit courts have also recognized that non-statutorily authorized prosecutorial promises of immunity must, under the Constitution, be given effect as binding the prosecution. [15] Even if this principle should eventually prove not to be the rule under federal law, we hold it to be the rule as a matter of due process under the Alaska Constitution art. I, § 7. That being the case, a defendant or witness does have more to rely upon than merely the grace or favor of the prosecutor; our courts stand ready to recognize and give effect to a prosecutorial promise of immunity made part of an agreement where proven, whether authorized by statute or not, and to allow the defendant some redress for prosecutorial reneging. As such, the logic of the argument made in Temple, Apodaca, and Doyle is stripped of its force, and does not persuade us to follow those cases. It requires a further step beyond holding that a prosecutor will be bound by his immunity promises, whether statutorily authorized or not, when voluntarily accepted by a witness as part of a bargain; we must further consider whether such binding effect justifies the use of such a promise to compel self-incriminating testimony. The privilege against self-incrimination is concerned with the danger to a witness forced to give testimony leading to the inflicting of penalties affixed to the criminal acts. Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 453, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 1661, 32 L.Ed.2d 212, 222 (1972); Ullmann v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 438-39, 76 S.Ct. 497, 506-07, 100 L.Ed. 511, 524-25 (1956); Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634, 6 S.Ct. 524, 534, 29 L.Ed. 746, 752 (1886). A witness may not refuse to testify upon a claim of Fifth Amendment privilege where there is no real or substantial hazard of incrimination, E.L.L. v. State, 572 P.2d 786, 788 (Alaska 1977). It follows that where the hazard of incrimination has been removed, the privilege against self-incrimination is no longer required. [16] It is undisputed that the promises made here met constitutional standards, under which testimony could be constitutionally compelled. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The third point is a collateral argument which should be noted. The oft-cited and well-reasoned case of Doyle v. Hofstader, 177 N.E. 489 (N.Y. 1931), held invalid a joint legislative resolution purporting to grant immunity for testimony before a legislative committee. The legislature was seeking to grant immunity based on its legislative power, and the opinion notes that the legislative power was not vested solely in the legislature, but rather was held jointly between the legislature and the executive. As such, the legislature could not immunize witnesses under its legislative power without exercising that power properly, i.e., with the approval of the Governor (in effect passing a statute). Again, the scheme we are contemplating here is different. The prosecutorial decision to initiate proceedings is not shared with another branch of government; it is within the prosecutor's sole discretion. Since the prosecutor, unlike the legislature in Doyle, may decide on his own that a particular individual is not to be prosecuted, [17] we need not take issue with the reasoning of Chief Judge Cardozo. A fourth factor which distinguishes this case from many of those cited to us by petitioner is the fact that our state has no statute governing discretionary immunity in court proceedings, whereas many of the statutory schemes under consideration in those cases contained provisions for limited grants  i.e., only in certain circumstances. [18] There is a much stronger argument for a finding of legislative intent to prohibit unauthorized immunity agreements when the legislature has enacted a specific list of situations in which discretionary immunity in court proceedings can be granted. This is an application of the well-known rule of statutory construction, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. [19] It was articulated well in the case of Grand Jurors for Middlesex County for Year 1974 v. Wallace, 343 N.E.2d 844, 846 (Mass. 1976): It is clear that a witness called to testify before a grand jury may be granted immunity from prosecution only in the manner prescribed by statute. General Laws c. 233, §§ 20C-20I, were enacted in 1970 and provide that immunity may be conferred on a witness before a grand jury only by order of a Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court. We agree with the reasoning of the Superior Court judge here where he said, `I rule the statutory plan preempts the subject and leaves no residual authority in the several district attorneys or in the Superior Court to grant immunity from prosecution.' It is true that it is nowhere expressly provided in the statutory scheme that immunity may be granted only in the manner shown therein. Also, the statutes provide that immunity may be granted thereunder only in proceedings or investigations concerned with certain specified crimes. G.L.c. 233, § 20D. From these provisions, the plaintiffs argue that power presently remains in the prosecutory to grant immunity as to crimes not enumerated in the statute. We do not agree. The broad and inclusive list of offenses in the statute demonstrates the legislative intent that, as to crimes not specified, no immunity shall be granted. [footnotes omitted] In Alaska, no statute governing discretionary grants of immunity in court proceedings has been passed. [20] Thus, we have no indication that the legislature intended to label certain situations as unauthorized. No legislative preemption has occurred. Not having expressed its approval of discretionary immunity promises only in certain trials, there is no presumption that the legislature intended to exclude others. Finally, the cases rely upon a policy argument: Whether the good to be attained by procuring the testimony of criminals is greater or less than the evil to be wrought by exempting them forever from prosecution for their crimes is a question of high policy as to which the lawmaking department of the government is entitled to be heard. Doyle v. Hofstader, 177 N.E. 489, 495 (N.Y. 1931). We think that there is merit in the position that the decision here should be a legislative one. As did the court in Apodaca v. Viramontes, 212 P.2d 425 (N.M. 1949), we emphasize the crying need for appropriate legislation. However, it is our task to explicate the state of the common law in the absence of legislative action. Thus, our decision in these cases does not foreclose legislative action. A general immunity approach such as the one we adopt here is not without its supporters, as against the piecemeal approach found in many legislative enactments: Mr. Wigmore in Volume 8 of his 3rd Edition on Evidence, page 529, § 2284, favors a general statute of immunity as against the practice in many states of enacting numerous statutes applicable only to prosecutions for particular crimes. After referring to the practice mentioned, he states: But, a more extensive and effective improvement would be to authorize the grant of immunity in all crimes without exception, by a single statutory section. This has already been done in Canada. Such a measure should leave to the judge's discretion, in each instance, to determine whether the immunity should be granted. With such flexibility the expedient of immunity grants would reach its maximum utility... . Apodaca v. Viramontes, 212 P.2d 425, 430 (N.M. 1949). Our overall conclusion, after considering the points raised by relevant decisional law, is that the lack of statutory authorization for promises of immunity does not compel the conclusion that they are invalid and cannot support the compulsion of testimony. Further, we think there are sound policy reasons which have persuaded us that such practices should be allowed even in the absence of statutory authorization. As a matter of interpretation of state law, we hold that the prosecutors in the instant case had the inherent authority, even in the absence of enabling legislation, to grant immunity and to use that grant to compel testimony which would otherwise be protected by the privilege against self-incrimination.