Opinion ID: 454538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: kastigar applied

Text: 17 This appeal presents problems of constitutional magnitude concerning the scope and effect of use immunity as contrasted with the erstwhile transactional immunity. In this case, Byrd was afforded use and derivative use immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002. 5 In Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), the Supreme Court held that such immunity from use and derivative use is coextensive with the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination, and therefore is sufficient to compel testimony over a claim of privilege. 406 U.S. at 453, 92 S.Ct. at 1661. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination 18 ... has never been construed to mean that one who invokes it cannot subsequently be prosecuted. Its sole concern is to afford protection against being forced to give testimony leading to the infliction of 'penalties affixed to ... criminal acts.'  Immunity from the use of compelled testimony, as well as evidence derived directly or indirectly therefrom, affords this protection. It prohibits the prosecutorial authorities from using the compelled testimony in any respect, and it therefore insures that the testimony cannot lead to the infliction of criminal penalties on the witness ... [I]mmunity from use and derivative use leaves the witness in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a grant of immunity ... This protection ... is all that the Constitution requires even against the jurisdiction compelling testimony by granting immunity. 19 406 U.S. at 453, 458-9, 92 S.Ct. at 1661, 1663-4 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis in original). In fashioning this doctrine, however, the Court emphasized that 20 A person accorded this immunity under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002, and subsequently prosecuted, is not dependent for the preservation of his rights upon the integrity and good faith of the prosecuting authorities.... 'Once a defendant demonstrates that he has testified, under a ... grant of immunity, to matters related to the federal prosecution, the federal authorities have the burden of showing that their evidence is not tainted by establishing that they had an independent, legitimate source for the disputed evidence.' ... 21 This burden of proof, which we reaffirm as appropriate, is not limited to a negation of taint; rather, it imposes on the prosecution the affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony. 22 406 U.S. at 460, 92 S.Ct. at 1665 (quoting Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 79 n. 18, 84 S.Ct. 1594, 1609 n. 18, 12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964). 23 Thus, in the case sub judice, the government's burden under Kastigar was simply to prove that the evidence presented to the grand jury 6 (and ultimately the evidence utilized at trial) was derived from legitimate, independent sources. Although Kastigar notes that this is a heavy burden in practical terms, 406 U.S. at 461, 92 S.Ct. at 1665, subsequent cases controlling in this circuit have made it clear that in legal terms, the government is only required to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence an independent source for all evidence introduced. United States v. Seiffert, 501 F.2d 974, 982 (5th Cir.1974), (Seiffert II ), cited with approval in United States v. Gregory, 730 F.2d 692, 698 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1170, 84 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985). 24 In the present case, the district court applied a far stricter test. The magistrate, upon review of the in camera evidence, specifically found that all of the evidence relied upon by the government was obtained prior to the time Byrd gave his immunized testimony. (R. 235). The district court, without any specific finding to the contrary, simply held that there was a possibility that Agent Coleman had incorporated Byrd's immunized testimony into his summaries of the testimony of other witnesses before the first grand jury. Indeed, the court pointed to no specific instances where Coleman's summaries of the testimony of witnesses before the grand jury were inaccurate, even though the court had the transcripts of both grand jury proceedings available in camera. This ignores the plain import of Seiffert II. The government is not required to negate all abstract possibility of taint. Rather, the government need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that, in fact, the evidence used was derived from legitimate, independent sources. Seiffert II, 501 F.2d at 982. Assuming that it was proper for the government to satisfy this burden by the submission of in camera evidence, see infra at pp. 5447-5449, it was incumbent upon the district court to examine the evidence and make a specific factual determination, based upon the actual record, of whence the evidence was derived. The government was only required to show that the evidence more likely than not was derived independently of Byrd's testimony. Of course, Coleman's representations that he did not make any use of Byrd's testimony, standing alone, may be inadequate to meet that burden. See United States v. Seiffert, 463 F.2d 1089, 1092 (5th Cir.1972) (Seiffert I ). However, if a review of the actual transcripts establishes that Coleman accurately described the testimony of witnesses at the first grand jury proceeding without prejudicial distortion, then clearly the government has satisfied its burden under Kastigar. 7 It is apparent, then, that the court below applied the wrong legal standard in assessing the government's evidentiary showing. 8 25 Byrd advances other arguments in support of the lower court's ruling, however. He argues that Kastigar does not limit the court's inquiry to only the source of evidence introduced by the government, but prohibits any use of immunized testimony for non-evidentiary purposes as well. This is a difficult question, and one that is not clearly answered by Kastigar. Moreover, neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit seem to have addressed the question directly. 26 Essentially, Byrd insists that the district court's dismissal was justified on the grounds asserted by the magistrate. First, he contends that there is a strong likelihood that his immunized testimony was used against him by the government in deciding to reindict him. As a basis for this contention, Byrd points to the fact that he was not officially a target of the investigation prior to giving his immunized testimony, and the fact that AUSA Stubbs, who had heard his immunized testimony and had access to the transcripts, participated in the decision to reindict. With respect to this argument, it should be noted that Kastigar made no mention of any burden on the government to erect an impenetrable barrier between the prosecutors who hear or read the immunized testimony and those who decide to indict, even though the potential problem was an obvious one. Rather, the Court simply declared that [b]oth the statute and the Fifth Amendment allow the government to prosecute using evidence from legitimate independent sources. Kastigar, 406 U.S. at 461, 92 S.Ct. at 1665. While Kastigar does emphasize that immunity from use and derivative use leaves the witness and the Federal Government in substantially the same position as if the witness had claimed his privilege in the absence of a grant of immunity, 406 U.S. at 459, 92 S.Ct. at 1664 (emphasis supplied), the Court did not explicitly mandate that the position of the parties remain absolutely identical in every conceivable and theoretical respect. That would place a virtually insurmountable burden of proof upon the government, and would approach (if not result in) de facto transactional immunity. So long as none of the evidence presented to the grand jury is derived, directly or indirectly, from the immunized testimony, it can fairly be said that the defendant's immunized testimony has not been used to incriminate him. 27 It is noted that at least two circuits have held that once a prosecuting attorney reads a defendant's immunized testimony, he cannot thereafter participate in the trial of the defendant, even where all the evidence to be introduced was derived from legitimate independent sources. United States v. Semkiw, 712 F.2d 891 (3rd Cir.1983); United States v. McDaniel, 482 F.2d 305 (8th Cir.1973). In language that includes substantial dicta, the courts reasoned that a prosecutor who had read or heard the immunized testimony may still 28 Use it in some significant way short of introducing tainted evidence.... Such use could conceivably include assistance in focusing the investigation, deciding to initiate prosecution, refusing to plea-bargain, interpreting evidence, planning cross-examination, and otherwise generally planning trial strategy.... [I]f the immunity protection is to be coextensive with the Fifth Amendment, as it must be to be constitutionally sufficient, then it must forbid all prosecutorial use of the testimony, not merely that which results in the presentation of evidence before the jury. 29 McDaniel, 482 F.2d at 311 (emphasis supplied). See also Semkiw, 712 F.2d at 895; United States v. Smith, 580 F.Supp. 1418 (D.N.J.1984). 30 The binding precedent from this circuit apparently does not speak directly to the issue of whether prosecutors who have had access to immunized testimony may participate in the decision to indict; rather, the cases from this circuit and the old Fifth Circuit speak only in terms of the source of the government's evidence. See, e.g., United States v. Gregory, 730 F.2d 692, 698 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 1170, 84 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); United States v. Seiffert, 501 F.2d 974, 982 (5th Cir.1974) (Seiffert II ). Thus, we must decide a question of first impression in this circuit: whether the government is required, under Kastigar, to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision to indict was not induced by the content of Byrd's immunized testimony, and if so, what proof or procedures would be sufficient to meet this burden. We do not read Kastigar to require a court to inquire into a prosecutor's motives in seeking indictment. So long as all the evidence presented to the grand jury is derived from legitimate sources independent of the defendant's immunized testimony, and the grand jury finds that independent evidence sufficient to warrant the return of an indictment, the defendant's privilege against self-incrimination has not been violated. At a minimum, the existence of independent evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to indict must be deemed to raise a presumption that the decision to indict was not tainted. Any other result would be the equivalent of transactional immunity, for it is almost impossible to conceive of a method whereby the government could demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the immunized testimony did not indirectly enter into a subsequent decision to prosecute. It is our view that the privilege against self-incrimination is concerned with direct and indirect evidentiary uses of compelled testimony, and not with the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. If the contrary views of McDaniel and Semkiw were adopted, the realistic difference between transactional immunity and use immunity would become hopelessly blurred if not totally extinguished, thus negating the plain import of Kastigar that both [18 U.S.C. Sec. 6002] and the Fifth Amendment allow the government to prosecute using evidence from legitimate independent sources. 406 U.S. at 461, 92 S.Ct. at 1665 (emphasis supplied). 31 Byrd next argues that dismissal of the indictment was proper because the government could theoretically utilize its knowledge of Byrd's testimony to decide which witnesses to call at trial, plan cross-examination of defense witnesses, interpret previously-discovered evidence, and make other strategic decisions concerning the evidence to be introduced at trial. Cf. Semkiw, 712 F.2d at 895; McDaniel, 482 F.2d at 311. This was also one of the grounds asserted by the magistrate in recommending dismissal of the indictment. 32 The short answer to this contention is that it is premature. While certain of the feared results--e.g., the government's use of its knowledge of Byrd's immunized testimony to elicit evidence on cross-examination--would probably constitute an impermissible use of evidence derived indirectly from the immunized testimony, 9 that has not yet taken place in this case. The mere theoretical possibility of an eventual Kastigar violation at trial is no grounds for dismissing the indictment. If and when the government seeks to elicit or introduce evidence indirectly derived from Byrd's testimony in such a manner, then Byrd would have cause to complain. At that point, the government would have the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the prosecutors on the case had no direct or indirect access to the immunized testimony, or that the evidence adduced was derived from independent sources. Perhaps the government could meet its burden by demonstrating that everything revealed in Byrd's immunized testimony was previously known to the government through independent sources, 10 or that any new information obtained directly or indirectly from Byrd's testimony did not make its way into evidence or facilitate the discovery or introduction of other evidence. In any event, until tainted evidence is actually adduced at trial, Byrd's testimony simply has not been used against him, and it is premature to predict that it will be. 33 McDaniel and Semkiw are not to the contrary on this point. In each of those cases the trial had already taken place, and the courts simply held that the government had not carried its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the prosecutors (who admittedly had full access to the defendants' immunized testimony in preparing for the trials), had not indirectly incorporated their knowledge of that testimony into the trial. McDaniel, 482 F.2d at 311; Semkiw, 712 F.2d at 893-95. Moreover, the court in Semkiw noted that the government might easily have removed any cloud from the trial by assigning it to another attorney who did not and would not review the immunized testimony. Semkiw, 712 F.2d at 895. In the case sub judice, this is precisely what the government has sought to do. If indeed AUSA Morehead has had no access to transcripts of the immunized testimony, and if no attorney who has heard or reviewed the testimony participates in the trial or preparation of the case, many of the conceivable abuses anticipated by the magistrate and by Byrd may be foreclosed. 11 Of course, there is still an arguable threat that Morehead will advertently or inadvertently derive some benefit in the preparation of the case by virtue of consulting with investigative agents (such as Coleman) or others who have been exposed to the immunized testimony during the course of the governmental investigation, but that possibility exists as a practical matter in every case in which an immunized witness is subsequently prosecuted for the transactions about which he has testified. So long as the government can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that this did not in fact occur, or that if it did, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, then clearly any conviction ultimately obtained would not be invalidated. Moreover, under Kastigar, it would seem that a violation of the privilege against self-incrimination would not occur in any event unless such use of the immunized testimony resulted in the introduction of evidence not obtained wholly from independent sources. 34 For these reasons, the defendant's concerns about the possibility of subtle strategic and evidentiary uses of his immunized testimony at trial are premature, and are not a sufficient basis for dismissing a valid indictment.