SUPREME COURT ALLOWS LENIENCY FOR TESTIMONY

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court Monday allowed
prosecutors to continue offering leniency for testimony of cooperating
witnesses, handing the Justice Department a victory in a closely
watched criminal case.

The high court rejected without any comment or dissent the argument
that federal prosecutors commit bribery by granting leniency to a
witness in exchange for testimony.

The justices let stand a decision by the full 10th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Denver, which found the argument to be ``patently absurd.''

The appeals court overturned a highly controversial decision by three
of its judges who declared that promising leniency to a witness
amounted to illegal buying of testimony.

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the argument that
the practice was illegal was ``contrary to well-settled law'' and did
not deserve Supreme Court review.

Solicitor General Seth Waxman of the Justice Department said Congress
has adopted laws that encourage federal prosecutors to offer leniency
and other benefits in return for a witness's truthful testimony.

Prosecutors have traditionally offered leniency to some defendants to
get them to testify against others. Leniency can be in the form of
immunity from prosecution or reduced charges and recommendations for
lesser sentences.

The case involved Sonya Singleton, who was convicted of money
laundering and conspiring to distribute cocaine in 1997 after a
co-defendant testified against her in exchange for a leniency offer
from prosecutors. She was sentenced to 46 months in prison.

Singleton charged that an anti-bribery law applied to the government
in prosecuting criminal offenses and prohibited prosecutors from
offering anything of value to a witness in exchange for testimony.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, her lawyer, John Val Wachtel, said
the full appeals court decision ``undermines the integrity, fairness
and credibility of the American system of justice.''

He claimed the government ``bought'' the testimony of the co-defendant
through the offer of lenient treatment, and that the practice must be
stopped.

Waxman defended the practice, saying that defendants at trial have the
opportunity to question any witness about any plea deal involving leniency.

The ``features of the adversary process afford defendants protection
against bias (from the use of such testimony) without depriving the
criminal justice system of evidence that has long been understood as
essential to the prosecution of a crime,'' he said.

The case has been closely watched by the Justice Department officials
after the three-judge appellate panel last year barred the government
from offering plea deals. They warned the ruling would have
wide-ranging impact if applied nationwide.