Court Opinion

ID: 9775918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:12:44.013334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:32.024261
License: Public Domain

HIGHTOWER, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. However, I write separately to comment on the alleged conduct of Hughes & Luce and Darrell Jordan. According to Peeler’s pleadings and her summary judgment proof, Assistant United States Attorney William Alexander contacted Jordan in December 1985 to offer both Peeler and her husband transactional immunity from prosecution in exchange for her cooperation with the government’s investigation.1 IRS agent Ernesto Hernandez and others corroborated Alexander’s testimony. According to Peeler, Jordan never eommunicat-ed any such offer to her. Jordan denies that Alexander ever spoke to him concerning immunity for Peeler and her husband. Subsequently, transactional immunity from prosecution was offered to and accepted by another individual.2 In January 1989, the government indicted Peeler, her husband and others on various charges. Based on the advice of Jordan and other lawyers, Peeler ultimately pled guilty to one count of the indictment in March 1989.
Even though the Court concludes that Peeler’s own conduct is the sole proximate or producing cause of her indictment and conviction, the holding today should not be perceived as condoning the alleged conduct of Hughes & Luce and Jordan which, if true, is reprehensible and unconscionable.

. Alexander’s sworn affidavit states:
On or about December 1-3, 1985, I made a definite, unambiguous offer of transactional immunity regarding all Hillcrest matters to Darrell Jordan, the attorney for Carol Peel-er_ I advised Mr. Jordan that the government was willing to "forgive all of Ms. Peeler’s sins regarding the Hillcrest matter from the beginning of the world until the end of time” in exchange for her cooperation. The immunity offer extended to Ms. Peeler’s husband as well, and would have prevented both of them from being indicted or prosecuted had Mr. Jordan communicated Ms. Peeler’s acceptance of the offer to me.

. In addition, at least one other defendant was represented by Hughes & Luce.