Court Opinion

ID: 9493098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:58:06.254801+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:39.088620
License: Public Domain

McKAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I join the court’s result and its opinion except for a brief part which I consider to be dicta. I write separately only to emphasize that the question of cash payment by the government for testimony remains open under Singleton. Also, the question of who has the burden to show that such payments are “traditional” remains open. United States v. Medina, 41 F.Supp.2d 38, 51-52 (D.Mass.1999). Medina in fact holds that they are not. I would follow Medina, including its burden-shifting mechanism. The government, unlike an accused person, is in a unique position to prove its “tradition” if one exists. The “we have always done it that way” response to what is a violation of the plain language of the statute is a confession and avoidance response-in other words, an affirmative defense.
I end where I began. These issues remain open, and these comments and any suggestion in the court’s opinion' which appear to foreclose them remain dicta.