Opinion ID: 590727
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Refusal to Immunize Potential Defense Witnesses

Text: 16 A criminal defendant may compel the government to immunize a witness where the fact-finding process is intentionally distorted by prosecutorial misconduct, and the defendant is thereby denied a fair trial. United States v. Westerdahl, 945 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir.1991). Such misconduct will only be found if the evidence sought from the nonimmunized witness was relevant, and the government distorted the judicial fact-finding process by denying immunity to the potential witness. Id. 17 Because the testimony of the Ultravest promoters would not have been relevant, no reversible misconduct occurred. Other than Condie's declaration, there is no evidence the promoters would have contradicted Cowen's testimony that Condie was a knowledgable participant in the Ultravest scheme. In fact, two of the promoters entered into plea agreements with the government which clearly indicated their testimony would have fully corroborated Cowen's statements.