Source: Standard-Times (MA)
Contact: YourView@S-T.com
Website: http://www.s-t.com/
Note: A shorter version (article cut after 12th paragraph) in the
Standard-Times (MA). Title: APPEALS COURT RULES OUT PROMISES OF LENIENCY.

Source: Herald, The (WA)
Contact: letters@heraldnet.com
Website: http://www.heraldnet.com/
Author: The Associated Press
Note: A shorter version (all references to McVeigh were excised) in The
Herald (WA). Title: COURT RULES AGAINST LENIENCY.

PROMISES OF LENIENCY FOR TESTIMONY RULED ILLEGAL

DENVER - A federal appeals court has ruled it is illegal for the government
to promise leniency to witnesses in exchange for testimony, a decision that
could hamstring prosecutors and help Timothy McVeigh in his appeal.

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 3-0 ruling Wednesday that
the practice amounts to buying testimony.

"This is a bombshell," said Denver attorney Larry Pozner.

"This hits the government right where they live. This is how the government
is operating, and we have said for 40 years, if you say to somebody in
criminal trouble, `I'll give you a free pass, or I'll let you go if you tell
me the story I want to hear,' they'll tell you whatever they need to say to
get out of trouble."

The decision could have implications for McVeigh's appeal because the
government's star witness in the Oklahoma City bombing case, Michael
Fortier, testified against McVeigh after cutting a deal with prosecutors.

"Somewhere tonight there is indigestion in the Department of Justice," said
Stephen Jones, McVeigh's former attorney.

Two of the judges who made the ruling, Paul Kelly Jr. and David Ebel, are
assigned to McVeigh's case.

A decision on McVeigh's appeal is expected this summer. He is awaiting
execution for the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people.

Mike Norton, a former U.S. attorney in Denver, said that if the appellate
court's decision stands, it will have "a tremendously negative impact on the
government's ability to investigate and prosecute crimes by groups -
conspiracy, drug trafficking, money laundering, securities fraud and
health-care fraud."

Norton said prosecutors routinely work their way up the chain of command in
a criminal organization, offering immunity or plea bargains to lower-level
participants in exchange for testimony against their superiors.

Kelly said such deals violate federal law.

"The government may still make deals with accomplices for their assistance
other than testimony, and it may still put accomplices on the stand. It
simply may not attach any promise, offer or gift to their testimony," the
court said.

The law states that anyone who directly or indirectly "gives, offers or
promises anything of value to any person for or because of testimony . . .
shall be fined . . . or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both,"
Kelly said.

The ruling came in the case of a Wichita, Kan., woman who allegedly was part
of a cocaine-trafficking ring. The woman's conviction was based in large
part on the testimony of another person involved in the conspiracy, Napoleon
Douglas.

The Appeals Court said Douglas was promised leniency in exchange for his
cooperation and testimony. Leniency is something of value, wrote the court,
and therefore illegal as part of a deal for testimony.

The government did not specifically tell Douglas that it would seek a
reduced sentence for him, but it promised not to prosecute him for other
offenses and said it would tell both the sentencing judge and his parole
board about his cooperation.

"The obvious purpose of the government's promised actions was to reduce his
jail time, and it is difficult to imagine anything more valuable than
personal physical freedom," Kelly said.

Checked-by: Melodi Cornett