downloaded 4/12/99 from URL http://www.grj.com/single2.html
From a piece by STEVEN K. PAULSON
JANUARY 9,1999, DENVER -- With a decision prosecutors describe as extremely important for criminal justice in America, a conservative federal appeals court has ruled that plea bargains can be traded in exchange for testimony, reversing a decision that had declared the practice illegal and constituting bribery of witnesses. The full 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that immunity deals and lesser sentences offered for the testimony of witnesses did not violate federal laws against bribery.
``It's a great day for federal prosecutors across this nation,'' said Linda McMahan, U.S. Attorney for Colorado. ``We are delighted with the 10th Circuit's opinion ... prosecutors are not violating the law or acting unethically when they engage in such a practice.''
Last summer, a three-judge panel of the 10th Circuit shocked criminal prosecutors the country when it declared plea-bargained testimony to be illegal. Prosecutors believe deals offering leniency to witnesses who testify in criminal cases are essential in bringing down organized crime leaders, drug lords and other high-profile criminals. Defense lawyers contend the deals are tantamount to buying testimony and argue that there are other ways witnesses can help prosecutors. Indeed many prosecutors deal with the higher-ups in criminal enterprises and much of the testimony results in charges against underlings; in exchange, the bosses get lighter charges and sentences. There is also a strong motive to offer false testimony which will help the prosecutor's case.
The panel's ruling was put on hold until the full Denver-based appeals court could review the issue. In its opinion Friday, the majority wrote that Congress has long known of the widespread practice. Had Congress intended to forbid such plea bargains, the court reasoned, ``it would have done so in clear, unmistakable and unarguable language.'' The three judges who made the earlier ruling dissented from Friday's majority ruling.
``Since the (three-judge) panel issued its opinion in this case, prosecutors from coast to coast have attempted to portray it as the death knell for the criminal justice system as we know it. ``But experience has proven that the government, just like the private citizens it regulates and prosecutes, can live within the rules,'' wrote judge Paul J. Kelly Jr. in his dissent.
The case centered on the Kansas conviction of Sonya Singleton on charges of cocaine trafficking and money laundering. The three judges said the chief prosecution witness illegally received leniency in exchange for his testimony, violating the law against bribing witnesses. In his original ruling, Kelly said prosecutors had to abide by the same rules that apply to others. ``If justice is perverted when a criminal defendant seeks to buy testimony from a witness, it is no less perverted when the government does so,'' he wrote.
The Justice Department said the practice was common, noting that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing based on testimony from a former friend who struck a deal. The three judges had ordered a new trial for Singleton and said Congress should rewrite anti-bribery laws if legislators believe prosecutors should be exempt. Lawyers scrambled to delay other cases affected by the ruling, but most did not expect it to stand. If the full 10th Circuit did not overturn it, they said Congress would likely have amended the law.