Case o' The Week: A Contrary Decision, Wilkes II and Immunization of Defense Witnesses
“Our cases thus illustrate
what Aristotle expressed more than two-thousand years ago – that ‘contradictory
propositions are not true simultaneously.” Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, 1011b13-14.
Makes for a high bar to hit
when seeking defense immunity – the Aristotelian Ideal.
United States v. Wilkes, 2014 WL 928256 (9th Cir. Mar.
10, 2014), decision available here.
Players: Decision by Judge M. Smith, joined
by Judges Fletcher and Watford. Hard-fought case by San Diego Ass’t Fed. Defender
Shereen Charlick.
Facts: Wilkes was convicted after trial
of a variety of fraud offenses in a scheme to bribe a former Congressman. Id. at *1. One government witness was
given use immunity, a second had a favorable plea agreement in return for his
testimony. Id. Wilkes then requested
use immunity for his witness, representing that this defense witness would
testify directly contrary to the two government witnesses above. Id. The district court denied the
defense motion for compelled use immunity, Wilkes was convicted, and appealed. Id. While on appeal, the Ninth decided United States v. Straub, 583 F.3d 1147
(9th Cir. 2008). Id. at *2. Straub allowed the defense to argue that
immunity to government witnesses, without similar defense immunity, could so
distort the fact-finding process that the defendant was denied his right to a
fair trial. Id. at *1. In a decision
written by Judge Alarcon, the Ninth remanded the case with instruction to the
district court to determine whether Wilkes was entitled to compelled testimony
for his witness. Id. at *2; see also blog here.
On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing, concluded the
defense testimony did not directly contradict that of the government witnesses,
and held that the defense witness’s knowledge predated many charged offenses. Id. The district court denied the motion
to compel: Wilkes appealed again. Id.
Issue(s): “Wilkes contends that the district
court’s failure to compel use immunity for [his witness] violated his right to
a fair trial under Straub. In support
of this argument, Wilkes points to eight alleged contradictions between [his
witness’s] proffered testimony and testimony offered [by government witnesses].”
Id. at *3.
Held: “The
record, however, makes clear that [the defense witness] never directly
contradicts testimony offered by [the government witnesses]. Id. “Wilkes . . . fails the first prong
of the Straub test. He is unable to
identify a single direct contradiction between the testimony [the defense
witness] would have offered at trial and testimony offered by an immunized
government witness. Accordingly, the district court’s conclusion that failure
to compel use immunity for [the defense witness] did not violate Wilkes’s right
to a fair trial is correct.” Id. at
*7.
Of Note: What is “contrary?” Much of Judge M. Smith’s opinion
wrestles with this threshold inquiry. Judge Smith concludes that “a witness
directly contradicts another witness if their respective testimonies cannot
simultaneously be true, although in this context the proffered defense
testimony need only support (as opposed to compel) a finding by the jury that
it was ‘directly contradictory.’” Id.
at *4 (quotations and citation omitted).
How to
Use: One small consolation in Wilkes is Judge M. Smith’s clarification
that Straub is not limited to cases
where government witnesses receive use immunity. “[G]overnment witnesses who
are granted favorable plea deals in return for their testimony are encompassed
by Straub[‘s] use of the term ‘immunized.”
Id. at *3 & n.1
For
Further Reading: “The bloated Bureau of Prisons eats
up nearly $ 7 billion a year, a quarter of the Justice Department’s entire
budget.” Odds are you’ll enjoy an editorial with that zinger – and this recent N.Y.T.
piece doesn’t disappoint. See, “A Rare Opportunity on Criminal Justice,”
here.
Image
of Aristotle from http://www2.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/poetics.html
Steven
Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalf.fpd
Labels: Defense Immunity, Immunity, Mandatory-minimum sentences, Milan Smith, Sentencing Reform
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home