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.

Events from this Firm
1 Oct 2019, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Orrick is proud to host the AIPN for its final breakfast meeting of 2019 for a session titled “Helping the World Gasify”. As natural gas production and use is very unevenly distributed throughout the world, often gas produced in association with crude oil is sold below cost or flared.

25 Nov 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Lorraine McGowen will be speaking on the upcoming “Evaluating the Financial Health of an Entity” panel at the New York session of the Pocket MBA: Finance for Lawyers and Other Professionals program, hosted by the Practising Law Institute.

2 Dec 2019, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Evan Hollander will co-chair the Practising Law Institute’s annual Nuts and Bolts of Corporate Bankruptcy this year.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions