Posted On Friday, September 6, 2013
Federal judges are out of the witness-immunity business.
Tossing aside decades-old precedent that had been rejected by the other federal courts of appeals, the Third Circuit ruled recently that district judges do not have the power to immunize witnesses whose testimony they deem “essential to the defense case.”
The unanimous decision of the en banc court in United States v. Quinn vests sole discretion for determining witness immunity in the hands of prosecutors.
Quinn was a bank-robbery case. The defendant, who allegedly drove the getaway car, sought the testimony of his codefendant, who had pleaded guilty and was awaiting sentencing. The codefendant invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and Quinn asked the court to grant the codefendant immunity from prosecution for his testimony, which would have forced him to testify. Quinn based his request on a 1980 case in which the Third Circuit ruled that judges can immunize a witness where necessary to “vindicate the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial.”
The district judge denied the request, and Quinn was convicted at trial.
On appeal, Quinn argued that the judge abused her discretion in denying his immunity request. But not only did the en banc court reject Quinn’s argument, it rejected its own precedent, holding that the government, not the court, must determine whether a witness is entitled to immunity.
“There are good reasons for immunity decisions to reside with the Executive Branch,” the court wrote. “Often the decision to grant or deny immunity impinges on the Government’s broad discretion as to whom to prosecute. . . . Courts are not in the best position to decide these prosecutorial tradeoffs.”
Post-Quinn, defendants in the Third Circuit remain free to argue that government misconduct prevented a witness who invoked the Fifth Amendment from testifying, thus distorting the trial process. If a defendant can make that showing, the court wrote, the government would have the choice to either immunize the witness at a retrial or to drop the charges.
But even in those cases, the prosecutor—not the court—retains the ultimate discretion over who receives immunity.
A former Chicago White Sox scouting executive was sentenced to two years in prison for his role in a kickback scheme that resulted in more than $400,000 from inflated signing bonuses for Latin American baseball prospects.
David Wilder served as the White Sox farm system director from late 2003 to 2006, and as the team’s senior director of player personnel until May 2008. The White Sox had a Latin American scouting program to identify and recruit prospective players in countries such as Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela, according to court documents.
The Sox either paid a signing bonus — a one-time, upfront payment made to a player to induce him to sign a contract — or purchased the contract rights of a player who was already affiliated with a Mexican baseball team by paying that team or its representative an amount necessary to induce the team to release the player to the White Sox. From 2004 to 2008, Wilder and two former White Sox Latin American scouts allegedly misrepresented to the White Sox the amount of money necessary to sign certain players and omitted information about the payments. As a result, the Sox paid artificially inflated signing bonuses to players and paid more money than necessary to purchase the contracts of or rights to players from other teams.
Wilder received the sentence recommended by prosecutors, who asked for leniency because of his substantial cooperation with investigators to help build cases against the two scouts who also participated in the four-year kickback scheme involving at least 23 Sox players.
Wilder’s attorney argued for a sentence of six months house arrest, pointing to his cooperation and good works in the community. Counsel claimed that Wilder had already been punished, primarily through the loss of a promising career. Wilder is now allegedly bankrupt after making $200,000 a year with the White Sox. Cincinnati Reds manager Dusty Baker claimed in a letter to the court that Wilder had been on a career path to become a general manager in the league. Wilder was also forced to sell off his three World Series rings to help support his 15-year-old daughter.
The Court was not persuaded, noting the lengthy four-year duration of the scheme and the considerable amount of money involved. Wilder was ordered to report to prison by Oct. 31. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle did not impose a fine, citing Wilder’s financial troubles, but did order the defendant to pay $440,781 in restitution to the White Sox.
The two former White Sox Latin American scouts have also pled guilty in connection with the scheme. Jorge L. Oquendo Rivera was sentenced in June to one year and one day in prison after pleading guilty to one count of mail fraud. Victor Mateo is slated to be sentenced Sept. 18, and authorities have recommended 10 months in prison, according to court records.
The case is USA v. Wilder et al., case number 1:10-cr-00948, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
