Court Opinion

ID: 9813430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:02:51.817834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:41.491146
License: Public Domain

GOODWIN, District Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result:
I concur in the judgment affirming the district court. I do not join in part II-B of *135the majority opinion for two reasons. I would not have addressed whether Sweets’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated. First, Sweets’s “testimony” was not used at trial. Second, Long’s testimony was admissible whether or not Sweets’s rights had been violated. Any possible taint of Long’s testimony had dissipated before he testified at trial. Further in part II-D, I would have omitted the discussion of the Fifth Amendment.
With that said, I join in Parts I, II-A, II-C (to the extent that I agree that Mr. Sweets’s testimony was not used against him at trial), the first paragraph of II-D, III and IV.