Opinion ID: 780418
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Voir Dire Inquiry Regarding Immunity

Text: 102 The defendants also argue that the Court improperly questioned prospective jurors regarding their feelings about the credibility of immunized witnesses during general voir dire. Essentially the defendants contend that the general voir dire question tended to lend credibility to the government witness who was granted immunity. The Court asked the following question: 103 Some witnesses who are expected to testify have been granted immunity from prosecution. 104 a. Does anybody feel that plea bargains or grants of immunity are wrong, improper, or somehow unfair? 105 b. Would you tend not to believe the testimony of an individual who has pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement simply because that witness entered into that agreement or has been given immunity? 106 c. Does anyone believe or feel it is wrong or improper for an individual to agree to plead guilty and cooperate with the government to identify and testify about others involved in the criminal activity? 107 d. Would you be able to be fair, impartial and unbiased in your evaluation to the testimony of witnesses who are convicted of offenses or have been granted immunity and have agreed to testify? 108 Appellee's Addendum C 4. 109 Only one government witness, Héberth Andres Borja-Molina, was granted immunity in this case. Mr. Borja-Molina is a young man who was intimately acquainted with the drug activity of the defendants. A similar instruction was upheld by this Court in United States v. Eagle Hawk, 815 F.2d 1213 (8th Cir.1987). In that case, we held that the inquiry into the use of immunized testimony was completely impartial, and within the broad discretion trial courts are afforded in determining how to conduct voir dire. Eagle Hawk, 815 F.2d at 1219. We believe that the inquiry made in this case was also impartial and was well within the Court's discretion. A juror who chooses to disbelieve a witness because that witness has been granted immunity is in no way behaving improperly. But a potential juror's attitude towards immunized testimony is relevant, because it could help the parties exercise their peremptory challenges.