United States v. Brent Wilkes
744 F.3d 1101
9th Cir.2014Background
- Wilkes convicted Nov. 5, 2007 on 13 counts including wire fraud, bribery, conspiracy, money laundering in a Cunningham bribery scheme.
- Remanded on Wilkes I for consideration of immunity issues after United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011).
- District court denied compelled immunity for Williams; Williams’s testimony would have contradicted other witnesses but district court found no direct contradiction.
- DoD Panama Project evidence and witness testimony differentially presented by Combs, Wade, and Williams; Williams offered use immunity but was not immunized.
- Wilkes challenged: (i) compelled immunity under Straub, (ii) jury participation in forfeiture, (iii) newly discovered evidence for a new trial; appellate review affirmed district court.
- Forfeiture issue relied on Libretti holding that there is no Sixth Amendment right to jury verdict in criminal forfeiture proceeding; district court’s decision affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compelled immunity under Straub | Wilkes seeks immunity for Williams to impeach others | District court found no direct contradiction or distortion | No reversible error; Williams not directly contradicted by immunized witnesses. |
| Jury trial right in criminal forfeiture | Apprendi/ Alleyne require jury findings for penalties; applies to forfeiture | Libretti controls; no jury right in forfeiture | No Sixth Amendment jury right; affirmative ruling for district court. |
| New trial based on newly discovered evidence | Declarations from Cunningham and Kontogiannis materials would acquit | Evidence would not likely yield acquittal | New trial denied; evidence not likely to change result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Straub, 538 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (defendant may show Fifth and due process distortions when immunized/ non-immunized conflicting testimony affects fair trial)
- United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524 (9th Cir. 2011) (Wilkes I remand on immunity issue)
- Libretti v. United States, 516 U.S. 29 (1995) (no Sixth Amendment jury right in criminal forfeiture)
- Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2004) (non-direct contradictions do not trigger Straub relief)
- Young, 86 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 1996) (immunity/plea deals and impeachment considerations)
- Southern Union Co. v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) (applies Apprendi-like reasoning to monetary penalties referenced in forfeiture)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fundamental sentencing facts must be found by jury)
- Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013) (extends Apprendi to mandatory enhancements)