THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE.

In United States v. Singleton, ___ F.3d ___ (No. 97-3178, 10^th Cir. filed July 1, 1998), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that federal prosecutors cannot offer witnesses anything of value, including promises of leniency, in exchange for the witness's testimony. This ruling strikes a substantial blow to the arsenal of weapons in a federal prosecutor's tool chest, and emphasizes the need for law enforcement personnel to obtain confessions whenever possible, particularly in drug cases.

The case involved a defendant charged with one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and seven counts of money laundering. In exchange for his truthful testimony, the prosecutor promised one of Singleton's coconspirators he would not prosecute the coconspirator for any drug crimes currently under investigation and to inform the sentencing court and a parole board of his cooperation. The Tenth Circuit held these promises violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), which prohibits giving, offering, or promising anything of value to a witness for or because of his testimony, and Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 3.4(b), which prohibits offering "an inducement to a witnesses that is prohibited by law." The Court stated, "[t]he judicial process is tainted and justice cheapened when factual testimony is purchased, whether with leniency or money. Because prosecutors bear a weighty responsibility to do justice and observe the law in the course of a prosecution, it is particularly appropriate to apply the strictures of [18 U.S.C.] § 201(c)(2) to their activities." The Court distinguished the situation from a grant of immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6001-6005, which the prosecutor can request but only the court can grant. The Court held the immunity statute overcomes a Fifth Amendment privilege so a silent witness can be forced to speak, but the prosecutor cannot grant immunity directly for the witness's testimony. The remedy for the prosecutor's violation, the Court said, was suppression of the coconspirator's testimony. The Court reversed the convictions and remanded the case for a new trial.

The Singleton ruling is based on a federal statute and does not appear to apply to state law prosecutions in Kansas state district courts. The applicable Kansas statute, K.S.A. 22-3415, does allow a prosecutor to grant immunity "on account of any transaction or matter contained in any statement or about which such person shall be compelled to testify," except for perjury, false statement or any other crime committed in giving such evidence.

Unless Singleton is reheard by the entire Tenth Circuit or accepted for review by the United States Supreme Court (either of which are somewhat likely), it will continue to govern federal prosecutions for the foreseeable future.

Please advise if you have any questions.

BY ORDER OF

_________________

CHIEF OF POLICE