United States: Baca Case Spotlights Rare Tool

Former L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca's high-profile corruption trial is set to begin after U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson rejected Baca's guilty plea and recommended six month prison sentence associated with a jailhouse corruption scheme. But perhaps even more interesting than the court throwing out a plea deal agreed to by the prosecution and the defense was the judge's decision to deny another defendant's request to immunize Baca before Baca was ever charged. If the immunity request had been granted, Baca might not be starting trial.

In 2015, it was Undersheriff Paul Tanaka who was on the hot seat and about to start trial on conspiracy and obstruction of justice charges. He wanted his former boss Baca to testify for him. But Baca — who had not been charged at the time — was unwilling to testify substantively for fear that he may be charged at some point in the future and his testimony would be used against him — or worse, by testifying on Tanaka's behalf, he would anger the prosecutor who would retaliate by deciding to charge him.

Tanaka was rightly concerned that the prosecution, by refusing to commit whether to charge Baca or not, was effectively causing Baca to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, and effectively depriving Tanaka of a defense witness. Tanaka argued that the prosecution was intentionally manipulating the fact-finding process and interfering with his due process right to a fair trial. While it is typically the prosecution who decides whether or not to grant immunity to a witness, Tanaka fought back by filing a motion requesting that the court compel the prosecution to immunize Baca. Although the court ultimately denied Tanaka's motion, that doesn't mean it wasn't a worthwhile effort.

The Baca scenario is becoming increasingly common in business fraud cases where the witnesses with access to exculpatory evidence are employees at the same company as the defendant and therefore potentially implicated in the misconduct at issue. For example, a controller charged with cooking the books may want his CFO to testify in his defense; however, the CFO — who is in limbo because the prosecutor is delaying his charging decision until after the controller's trial — may refuse to testify for fear of self-incrimination. While the prosecutor in this instance may righteously be investigating the CFO while at the same time prosecuting the controller, the scenario creates an unfair situation for the controller, who has effectively been denied his right to a fair trial: Unless the CFO is granted immunity, he will invoke his Fifth Amendment right and the jury will never hear his side of the story. The controller's options in this situation may depend on where his trial is taking place.

While typically immunity decisions are the exclusive purview of prosecutors, judicially compelled use immunity, which requires the prosecutor to grant immunity for the witness or face dismissal, is available in the right circumstances.

A circuit split has developed regarding what specifically needs to be proven in order to receive judicially compelled immunity. In the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, an applicant needs to show prosecutorial misconduct — namely, that the prosecutor has deliberately distorted the fact-finding process. See U.S. v. Quinn, 728 F.3d 243, 261-62 (3rd Cir. 2013). Other circuits also require prosecutorial misconduct. See United States v. Mackey, 117 F.3d 24, 27 (1st Cir. 1997) (stating that "in certain extreme cases of prosecutorial misconduct," government's refusal to grant immunity may justify dismissal of prosecution); U.S. v. Abbas, 74 F.3d 506, 512 (4th Cir. 1996) ("On occasion, however, the district court can compel the prosecution to grant immunity when (1) the defendant makes a decisive showing of prosecutorial misconduct or overreaching and (2) the proffered evidence would be material, exculpatory and unavailable from all other sources."); Blissett v. Lefevre, 924 F.2d 434, 441-42 (2d Cir. 1991) ("[P]etitioner must show prosecutorial overreaching which substantially interferes with the defense, or with a potential defense witness's unfettered choice to testify."); United States v. Frans, 697 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir. 1983) ("[W] e agree with the Third Circuit that a defendant must make a substantial evidentiary showing that the government intended to distort the judicial fact-finding process before we will depart from the strong tradition of deference to prosecutorial discretion.").

California law is similar to the 3rd Circuit. See People v. Stewart, 33 Cal. 4th 425, 470 (2004) (recognizing authority to grant immunity to a defense witness when "the prosecutor intentionally refused to grant immunity to a key defense witness for the purpose of suppressing essential, noncumulative exculpatory evidence, thereby distorting the judicial factfinding process").

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on the other hand, has recognized compelled immunity even absent a showing of prosecutorial misconduct. For example, in U.S. v. Straub, where the prosecution gave its 11 witnesses some form of immunity or other incentive but denied use immunity to the only defense witness, the 9th Circuit held that compelled immunity was appropriate if the prosecution's selective denial of use immunity had the effect of distorting the fact- finding process, even if the prosecution's purpose in denying use immunity was not to distort the fact-finding process. 538 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008).

Straub was at the center of the Broadcom stock options backdating case. During the criminal securities fraud trial of former CFO William Ruehle, his attorneys moved to compel use immunity for Broadcom co- founder Henry Samueli and former General Counsel David Dull so that they could testify in Ruehle's defense. At the time, Samueli was awaiting sentencing on his false statement charge, but neither he nor Dull were charged with securities fraud. Ruehle argued that the government had forced a one-sided telling of the events at Broadcom by relying heavily on the testimony of former HR Director Nancy Tullos, who had cut a plea deal with the government that required her to cooperate against Ruehle, and not granting immunity to Samueli or Dull, who had previously testified under oath to the SEC. Ruehle argued that they were both heavily involved in the events at issue and, as their SEC testimony made clear, their testimony would contradict Tullos's.

The court in Ruehle saw things very differently from the court that denied Tanaka's motion to grant immunity for Baca. U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney focused on the fact that all parties agreed that Samueli and Dull would assert their Fifth Amendment right if called to the stand and that there were legitimate Fifth Amendment concerns under the circumstances — Samueli hadn't been sentenced yet, and there was no guarantee that the government wouldn't charge Dull. Noting his respect for the separation of powers, Carney stressed the importance of protecting criminal defendants' constitutional rights to have witnesses testify in their defense. Given that the prosecution had not charged Samueli or Dull with securities fraud, Judge Carney saw no compelling reason for not allowing these witnesses to testify in Ruehle's defense. The court found that, while there did not appear to be any intentional, willful misconduct by the government, there was indeed a distortion of the fact-finding process because the jury had only heard the very incriminating testimony of the prosecution's witness and not heard the other side of the story: "But I would feel very uncomfortable, very uncomfortable, sir, with the facts as I know them, and if there is a conviction against Mr. Ruehle, that I didn't allow Dr. Samueli and Mr. Dull to testify." The court granted the immunity motion paving the way for Samueli and Dull to testify for the defense. Ironically, the court found prosecutorial misconduct and ultimately dismissed the indictment against Ruehle when, shortly before Dull was set to testify, the prosecutor called Dull's attorneys and threatened perjury prosecution if Dull didn't testify in the manner the prosecutor desired.

So, whether you are representing Tanaka, Ruehle or the controller in the hypothetical, making a motion to immunize a key defense witness is worth considering. In California state court and federal circuits outside the 9th Circuit, the key will be showing prosecutorial misconduct. This will be challenging because the prosecutor may in good faith still be investigating the witness in parallel with efforts to prosecute the defendant. Proving bad faith on the part of the prosecutor will typically require a showing that the witness isn't truly within the government's crosshairs, an uphill battle for sure. In the 9th Circuit, the defense argument can be much stronger because the focus can be on the effect the prosecutor's decision has on the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial, rather than on the prosecutor's intent. To be sure, even in the 9th Circuit, there can be no guarantee this motion will work. In Tanaka, the judge-requested immunity motion was denied and Tanaka was convicted. However, in Ruehle, the motion was granted, jump- starting a chain of events that led to the Ruehle indictment being dismissed.

Trial lawyers have many different tools in their toolbox; it is knowing which tool to use that makes the difference. Most criminal defense lawyers are well-acquainted with asking the prosecution for immunity for their client. Asking the court for immunity is another tool that may be appropriate — and necessary — in the right situation to guarantee a fair trial.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.