Court Opinion

ID: 9465197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:38:37.783908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:01.661101
License: Public Domain

BRIGHT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. For reasons stated below, I believe this court must consider and accept in part Saettele’s contention that he was denied a fair trial because the Government immunized its chief witness but declined to offer immunity to Saettele’s witnesses.
The district court stated three grounds for denying Saettele’s motions regarding immunity for Sargis and Chappel. The court first asserted that it had no inherent power to grant witnesses immunity from prosecution. In a later memorandum opinion, the court stated that even if it possessed the power, granting immunity in the present case would be inappropriate because (1) immunity from federal prosecution would not necessarily compel the witnesses to testify because they might still be subject to state prosecution and (2) the testimony of Sargis and Chappel was immaterial because Saettele was not entitled to the defense of duress.
I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that, as a matter of law, Saettele was not entitled to the defense of duress as a basis for affirming the district court. The district court concluded that Saettele “had many opportunities to escape and, thus, the defense of duress is not available.” The district court drew this conclusion, however, before receiving all available evidence on this issue. If the testimony of Chappel and Sargis corroborated Saettele’s testimony, it might have bolstered Saettele’s credibility and shed more light on the nature and extent of the alleged duress. On the present state of the record we have no way of knowing whether the witnesses’ testimony would have supported Saettele’s duress claim. Because the district court prematurely concluded that the defense was not available, that conclusion constituted an insufficient basis for rejecting the testimony of Chappel and Sargis and is, in my opinion, an improper basis for an affirmance by this court.
The district court also stated that the possibility of state prosecution might deter Chappel and Sargis from testifying even if immunity were granted. I disagree with this hypothesis. Immunity granted by a federal court extends to state as well as federal prosecutions. See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 456-59, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972); Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52, 78-79, 84 S.Ct. 1594,12 L.Ed.2d 678 (1964); United States v. Watkins, 505 F.2d 545 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Armstrong, 476 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1973). Therefore, Sargis and Chappel, upon being granted immunity, could not use fear of state prosecution as a basis for invoking their fifth amendment privilege.
The district court’s final basis for denying Saettele’s motion — that it lacked the power to grant immunity or to compel the prosecution to do so — presents greater difficulty, for it raises important questions of conflicting constitutional rights and responsibilities.
The compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant’s right to secure the testimony of witnesses on his or her behalf, a right that plays a fundamental role in our system of criminal justice. The Supreme Court recently emphasized the importance of the compulsory process clause in United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974):
The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive. The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that com*311pulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.
The compulsory process clause assures not only the right to compel the attendance of witnesses but also the right to secure their testimony:
[T]he petitioner in this case was denied his right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor because the State arbitrarily denied him the right to put on the stand a witness who was physically and mentally capable of testifying to events that he had personally observed, and whose testimony would have been relevant and material to the defense. The Framers of the Constitution did not intend to commit the futile act of giving to a defendant the right to secure the attendance of witnesses whose testimony he had no right to use. [Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1925, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (footnote omitted).]
See Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mieh.L.Rev. 71 (1974).
A defendant does not, however, have an absolute right to compel testimony, for a witness may refuse to testify on the ground that the testimony may be incriminating. The fifth amendment right against compulsory self-incrimination “reflects * * * our fundamental values and aspirations, and marks an important advance in the-development of our liberty.” Kastigar v. United States, supra, 406 U.S. at 444, 92 S.Ct. at 1656 (footnote omitted); accord, Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, supra, 378 U.S. at 55, 84 S.Ct. 1594 (1964); Ullman v. United States, 350 U.S. 422, 426, 76 S.Ct. 497, 100 L.Ed. 511 (1956).
The conflict between these two essential rights has led to the enactment of statutes empowering prosecutors to afford immunity to witnesses who invoke their fifth amendment rights. Such statutes “seek a rational accommodation between the imperatives of the [fifth amendment] privilege and the legitimate demands of government to compel citizens to testify.” Kastigar v. United States, supra, 406 U.S. at 446, 92 S.Ct. at 1657. At issue in the present case are the immunity provisions of 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002, 6003 (1976).4 Under section 6002, a witness may be compelled to testify by granting “use immunity,” i. e., no testimony given under the grant of immunity may be used against the witness in a criminal case. Section 6003 provides the procedure to fol-
*312low in seeking immunity. The United States attorney, upon determining that the testimony is necessary to the public interest, must first obtain the approval of the Attorney General and then must seek a court order compelling the witness to testify, subject to the immunity provisions of section 6002. The court’s power is limited: “The court’s role in granting the order is merely to find the facts on which the order is predicated.” H.R.Rep. No. 91-1549, 91st Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1970] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News pp. 4007, 4018.
Because the authority to seek immunity under section 6002 can be exercised only by the prosecutor, the statute does not always achieve its purpose of accommodating the conflicting rights of the defendant and the witness. Such is the case before us. Under the circumstances of this case, I believe the constitutional demands of a fair trial required the prosecutor to grant immunity to the defense witnesses or the district court to take steps to rectify the unfairness created by the Government’s one-sided grant of immunity only to its own witness.
The very essence of the due process clause of the fifth amendment, as well as the sixth amendment in its entirety, is the assurance of a fair trial for criminal defendants. The importance of this requirement cannot be overstated, for
[s]ociety wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly. [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1197,10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).]
Courts have repeatedly held that government suppression of evidence favorable to the defendant violates the defendant’s right to due process. In Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 77 S.Ct. 623, 1 L.Ed.2d 639- (1957), the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court erred in permitting the Government to withhold the identity of an informant who would have been the defendant’s sole material witness. The Court noted that the scope of the Government’s privilege to withhold the identity of informants is limited by “the fundamental requirements of fairness” and the defendant’s “right to prepare his defense.” Id. at 60, 62, 77 S.Ct. 623. The Court remanded for further proceedings. In Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, the Court held that a prosecutor must disclose evidence favorable to the defendant; failure to do so, even in good faith, violates the requirements of due process. The Court remanded for retrial. The Third Circuit reached a similar conclusion in United States ex rel. Almeida v. Baldi, 195 F:2d 815 (3d Cir. 1952). The court affirmed the grant of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that “suppression of evidence favorable to Almeida was a denial of due process.” Id. at 820.
A refusal to offer immunity to defense witnesses may amount to suppression of exculpatory evidence under some circumstances. Only the Third Circuit has ordered a grant of immunity in such a case. In United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1976), the prosecutor had intimidated the defendant’s primary witness to the point where she invoked her fifth amendment privilege. The court held that the prosecutor’s actions violated the defendant’s right to due process. It ordered that upon retrial the Government must either request immunity for the witness or the trial court must enter a judgment of acquittal. Three other circuit courts, while holding that the trial court lacked the power to grant immunity to defense witnesses under the circumstances before them, have speculated that under different circumstances such a power might exist. In Earl v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 361 F.2d 531 (1966), the District of Columbia Circuit refused to order immunity for a defense witness. Judge (now Chief Justice) Burger, writing for the court, contrasted the circumstances with those existing in Brady and noted that the Government had not suppressed any evidence. In a footnote, however, he suggested that immunity may be required if the Government had granted immunity to its own witnesses:
*313We might have quite different, and more difficult, problems had the Government in this case secured testimony from one eyewitness by granting him immunity while declining to seek an immunity grant for Scott to free him from possible incrimination to testify for Earl. That situation would vividly dramatize an argument on behalf of Earl that the statute as applied denied him due process. [Id. 124 U.S.App.D.C. at 80, 361 F.2d at 534 n.l (emphasis in original).]
In a statement upon denial of a petition for rehearing en banc in the same case, Judge Leventhal also expressed a concern that the principles underlying Brady should be applied to immunity questions. Earl v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 364 F.2d 666 (1966), cert. denied, 388 U.S. 921, 87 S.Ct. 2121, 18 L.Ed.2d 1370 (1967). Chief Judge Bazelon of the same court has suggested that the trial court may be able to condition the introduction of government evidence on the Government’s agreement to grant immunity to defense witnesses. United States v. Leonard, 161 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 66, 494 F.2d 955, 985 n.79 (1974) (Bazelon, C. J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also United States v. Gaither, 176 U.S. App.D.C. 274, 539 F.2d 753, cert. denied, 429 U.S. 961, 97 S.Ct. 388, 50 L.Ed.2d 329 (1976) (statement of Bazelon, C. J., upon denial of petition for rehearing en banc). The Seventh Circuit in United States v. Allstate Mortgage Corp., 507 F.2d 492 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 999, 95 S.Ct. 2396, 44 L.Ed.2d 666 (1975), held that a defendant has no constitutional right to have immunity conferred upon witnesses who exercise their fifth amendment privilege; yet it expressly contrasted the case with a situation in which the Government secures evidence by means of grants of immunity. In United States v. Alessio, 528 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3167, 49 L.Ed.2d 1184 (1976), the court refused to compel the Government to grant immunity to defense witnesses. The court noted that the “key question” was whether the defendant “was denied a fair trial because of the government’s refusal to seek immunity for defense witnesses,” but it concluded that the defendant was not denied a fair trial because the proffered evidence was merely cumulative. Id. at 1082.
In the present case, the Government refused to grant immunity to Chappel and Sargis, thereby placing their testimony out of Saettele’s reach. These were the only witnesses who might have rebutted McGirr’s testimony and corroborated Saet-tele’s own story. The Government presented no affirmative reason for refusing immunity to these two witnesses.5 In fact, the prosecutor had already offered immunity to Chappel but withdrew the offer when it appeared that Chappel’s testimony would support Saettele’s defense. Thus, the Government utilized its immunity-granting power to obtain McGirr’s crucial testimony and to make its case against Saettele, but it denied Saettele the benefit of that power and, as a result, the opportunity to obtain offsetting testimony. The principles enunciated in Roviaro and Brady, supra, should be extended to the particular circumstances present in this case, for the prosecution’s conduct amounted to the withholding of evidence favorable to Saettele and served to deprive him of a fair trial.
*314As noted above, the power to seek a grant of immunity under federal law rests with the United States attorney, not the trial court. The trial court, however, possesses an inherent power to regulate the introduction of evidence and to assure the integrity and fairness of the judicial process. Under the narrow circumstances disclosed in this record, the trial court possessed the power to condition its consideration of McGirr’s testimony upon the granting of immunity to Sargis and Chappel.
Accordingly, I would vacate the judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings.6

. Section 6002 provides:
Whenever a witness refuses, on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or provide other information in a proceeding before or ancillary to—
(1) a court or grand jury of the United States,
(2) an agency of the United States, or
(3) either House of Congress, a joint committee of the two Houses, or a committee or a subcommittee of either House,
and the person presiding over the proceeding communicates to the witness an order issued under this part, the witness may not refuse to comply with the order on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination; but no testimony or other information compelled under the order (or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information) may be used against the witness in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the order.
Section 6003 provides:
(a) In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to a court of the United States or a grand jury of the United States, the United States district court for the judicial district in which the proceeding is or may be held shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon the request of the United States attorney for such district, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 of this part.
(b) A United States attorney may, with the approval of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, or any designated Assistant Attorney General, request an order under subsection (a) of this section when in his judgment—
(1) the testimony or other information from such individual may be necessary to the public interest; and
(2) such individual has refused or is likely to refuse to testify or provide other information on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination.

. One possible reason is that the Government would sacrifice the opportunity to prosecute Sargis and Chappel. Saettele argues in his brief that the Government had already decided not to do so. Whether this assertion is true or not, the Government would lose little by granting use immunity. As one commentator has noted:
Kastigar’s analysis applies with equal force to the grant of use immunity to defense witnesses. The prosecution surrenders nothing by granting it: The incriminating statements that it cannot use against the immunized witness are statements that, absent immunity, would never have been made. The prosecution can hardly complain about immunizing defense witnesses because, as the Supreme Court said, the prosecution is in substantially the same position with respect to a witness after granting him immunity as before. [Westen, The Compulsory Process Clause, 73 Mich.L.Rev. 71, 169 (1974) (emphasis added).]
Here, Sargis and Chappel apparently told their story at least in part prior to trial but had made no incriminating statements under oath. The Government could, of course, use information obtained prior to the grant of immunity.

. The case need not be retried in its entirety on the theory of this dissent. The district court could allow Saettele to reopen his defense and should allow the Government an opportunity to grant immunity to Sargis and Chappel. If the Government chooses not to do so, the district court could grant Saettele’s motion to strike McGirr’s testimony or his motion to dismiss the prosecution.