United States v. Carona, 660 F.3d 360

Carona, former Sheriff of Orange County, was charged with several federal crimes; jurors acquitted him on most counts and convicted him on one count of witness tampering under 18 U.S.C. §1512(b)(2)(A).
Prosecutors used a cooperating witness (Haidl) who was given fake subpoena attachments to elicit incriminating statements from Carona.
The district court held prosecutors violated California Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 2-100 but did not suppress the evidence or impose sanctions, leaving disciplinary matters to the state bar.
Carona sought remedies including suppression of the tapes, jury instruction on weight, introduction of prosecutor ethics evidence, and lead-prosecutor disqualification; these were denied.
On appeal, Carona challenged both the Rule 2-100 issue and the §1512(b)(2)(A) conviction, arguing the conduct did not violate the rule or the statute as interpreted.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court, concluding no Rule 2-100 violation occurred and Carona violated §1512(b)(2)(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did prosecutors violate Rule 2-100 by using a cooperating witness with fake subpoenas?	Carona contends there was a Rule 2-100 violation.	Carona argues the prosecutors engaged in impermissible indirect contact via the informant.	No Rule 2-100 violation; evidence not suppressed.
Does Carona's conduct violate §1512(b)(2)(A) by attempting to persuade a witness to withhold testimony on specific topics while giving false testimony?	Carona argues §1512(b)(2)(A) requires withholding all testimony or not apply to partial withholding.	Carona contends the statute should be read narrowly to withhold all testimony only.	Yes, Carona violated §1512(b)(2)(A); conviction affirmed.

United States v. Talao, 222 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2000) (case-by-case approach to Rule 2-100; no bright-line rule)
United States v. Hammad, 858 F.2d 834 (2d Cir. 1988) (fake subpoena/alter ego concerns under Rule 2-100)
United States v. Powe, 9 F.3d 68 (9th Cir. 1993) (undercover/cooperating witness contact not per se Rule 2-100 violation)
United States v. Kenny, 645 F.2d 1323 (9th Cir. 1981) (no ethical violation where codefendant cooperates and records conversation)
United States v. Ryans, 903 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1990) (indirect contacts not per se Rule 2-100 violation)
United States v. Martino, 825 F.2d 754 (3d Cir. 1987) (persuasive authority on use of fake subpoena in undercover setting)
United States v. Banks, 556 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2009) (dictionary meaning of terms; interpretation in absence of definition)
United States v. Nader, 542 F.3d 713 (9th Cir. 2008) (rule of lenity in ambiguous criminal statutes)
United States v. Freeman, 208 F.3d 332 (1st Cir. 2000) (withholding testimony on a topic can violate §1512(b)(2)(A))
United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2006) (context for withhold testimony and false testimony scenarios)