Opinion ID: 439958
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Incriminatory witness

Text: 83 In determining whether Wille's testimony incriminated Pflaumer we must examine the evidence implicating Pflaumer in the excise tax fraud scheme. That scheme originated when Oxman, a commission salesman for Park Oil, arranged through John McCullough, the late president of a Philadelphia labor union, to meet with Pflaumer in an effort to obtain the fuel oil business of Pflaumer's Philadelphia-based enterprises. Jock, Oxman and McCullough attended the initial meeting, but only Jock testified about it. According to Jock, he explained to Pflaumer that he could not offer better prices than those charged by Arco and Gulf other than if we went with the tax-angle routine. Jock agreed to report as delivery destinations [w]hatever they told us to put on the invoice[s]. App. at 136. Jock also testified that Pflaumer instructed him to explain the tax-angle routine to Gillan. App. at 138-39. Jock's testimony implicated Gillan and indicated that Oxman and McCullough were receiving commissions on WHP sales. While the scheme was in operation, WHP fell behind in payments. Jock called Pflaumer and told him he could not pay commissions to Oxman and McCullough because he was not getting paid for his product. App. at 150. Jock also stated that late in 1979, after the date of the last mailing, Pflaumer engaged in efforts to conceal the tax fraud from state auditors by destroying fuel invoices. 84 During cross-examination, questioning by defense counsel suggested that Jock had inculpated Pflaumer in order to obtain Jock's release from prison. The examination established that the prosecution had orchestrated Jock's transfer to Eglin prison camp, a minimum security prison--characterized by Jock as a country club, App. at 270--obtained a reduction in sentence making Jock eligible for parole immediately, App. at 272, and recommended favorable treatment from the Parole Board, which Jock received. App. at 274. As a consequence, Jock--who had at that time served only five months of a four-year prison term for wire fraud--was released on parole after only three additional months' incarceration, two of which Jock served at a half-way house in Palm Beach. App. at 275. The import of Jock's cross-examination was that the government had paid dearly for his testimony. 85 In order to bolster Jock's testimony against Pflaumer, the government sought to establish that Pflaumer had a daily role in WHP's financial affairs. Wille was one such prosecution witness. Wille testified to Pflaumer's role in WHP as follows: 86 Q. What was Mr. Pflaumer's involvement in Wm. H.P., Inc.? 87 A. He pretty much directed the company. His primary interest was in the operation of the brewery, Schmidt Brewery. He directed it from the financial end. From the part that I saw he directed the accounts payable, what was to be paid and the girl who wrote the checks, checked with him about what was to be paid. 88 Q. What would you say the extent of his involvement was in the financial end of the trucking company? ... Could the check go out of there without Mr. Pflaumer's knowledge? 89 A. No. That was his principal involvement on the financial end. 90 Q. Was there a cash flow problem with the company while you were there? 91 A. Yes. 92 Q. Did it require Mr. Pflaumer's constant vigilance? 93 A. The office manager would check with him with respect to any check that was to be written if she did not think that he was aware that the check was going to be written that day. 94 Q. And did you personally talk to Mr. Pflaumer from time to time about the financial end of the trucking company? 95 A. Yes. 96 Q. On a daily basis? 97 A. Probably not on a daily basis but several times a week. 98 Q. Did you observe the office manager talking to Mr. Pflaumer on a daily basis? 99 A. Oh, yes; usually several times a day. 100 App. at 859-61 (emphasis added). The government knew long before trial that Wille would testify to these matters by virtue of several FBI interviews with him. 101 Through Wille, therefore, the government established that WHP issued no checks without Pflaumer's approval and that Pflaumer conferred several times daily with the WHP office manager. In contrast, Pflaumer's defense was that Gillan and Hill ran WHP, while he spent most of his time at the brewery and had little involvement in the day to day financial affairs of WHP. 102 Thus, Wille's testimony rebutted a principal defense on which Pflaumer relied. A significant portion of the government's case consisted of establishing that Pflaumer had a daily role in WHP's financial affairs. The government argued that Pflaumer's assertion that he had no involvement in the affairs of WHP was false, and that the jury might infer that Pflaumer must have known of the scheme. Certainly, therefore, Wille's testimony incriminated Pflaumer. If believed, it established that Pflaumer was sufficiently involved in the affairs of WHP to have direct control over every check that the company issued. The jury might infer, as the government argued, that Pflaumer must have known of the tax scheme. Consequently, we hold that Wille's testimony incriminated Pflaumer in the tax fraud scheme and that the prosecutor before trial had ample basis for knowing that it would do so. 14 103 In ruling that the Wille immunity agreement was immaterial, the trial court pointed out that the testimony of Jock and Luciano suggested Pflaumer's involvement. The court then concluded: 104 Clearly, therefore, even if the defendants had been able to impeach Wille by virtue of the immunity agreement, there was sufficient other evidence implicating Mr. Pflaumer. 105 App. at 1673. This ruling is legal error. The test is not whether, viewed in retrospect, there was sufficient additional evidence such that, without Wille's testimony, the case could have been submitted to the jury. Under Agurs, when a specific request for evidence is made, the standard is whether the defendant has a substantial basis for claiming materiality. Evidence significantly impeaching the truthfulness of an incriminating witness gives rise to a substantial basis for claiming materiality. United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d at 43; United States v. McCrane, 547 F.2d at 206-08. Thus, we turn to whether the Wille immunity agreement was significant impeachment evidence. 106