Government Can Refuse to Grant Immunity if it has a Reasonable Basis to Fear Potential Perjury

Cassandra Lynn Hayes v. United States, No. 13-CF-927 (Decided February 12, 2015).

Players: Associate Judges Fisher and Blackburne-Rigsby, Senior Judge Nebeker.  Opinion by Blackburne-Rigsby.  Matthew G. Kaiser and Allison Lansell for Ms. Hayes.  Trial Judge: Heidi Pasichow.

Facts: This case stems from a night of revelry gone wrong.  Ms. Hayes and her friends planned a night out on the town.  They rented a limousine and reserved a VIP section in a nightclub, and, during the course of the night, consumed a lot of alcohol.  At 2:00 a.m., drunk and hungry, the group left the club to get pizza.  Agitation over seating arrangements caused a kerfuffle, pizza was knocked over, and the complainant lost some teeth.  A jury convicted Ms. Hayes of aggravated assault.  Ms. Hayes’ theory at trial was that another member of the group, Mattie Eubank, assaulted the victim.  Ms. Eubank was prepared to testify to this effect if the government granted her immunity.  The government refused to do so, finding a potential for perjury after debriefing Ms. Eubank.  Ms. Eubank therefore invoked her privilege against self-incrimination.

Issue: Did the trial court adequately inquire into the government’s basis for refusing to grant immunity as required by Carter v. United States, 684 A.2d 331 (D.C. 1996) (en banc)?

Holding: Yes.  The DCCA held that under Carter, the government is not required to show a threat of blatant perjury.  The government must instead show that it has a reasonable basis for not granting immunity, which, for purposes here, includes clear indications of potential perjury and consideration of potential prosecution.

Of Note:

• The Court called this a “close case” because it toed the “fine line” between clear indications of potential perjury, which is a proper basis to decline immunity, and normal differences in perspective, which is a credibility question that must be left for the jury.  DH

Read full opinion here.