United States v. Jacob Stadfeld, 689 F.3d 705

Mortier, a major marijuana distributor near Madison, Wisconsin, disappeared in Nov. 2004 triggering a Wisconsin John Doe proceeding to determine if a crime occurred.
John Doe subpoenas were issued to Mortier’s known drug associates to testify; some sought formal immunity, others testified with Fifth Amendment privilege.
Stadfeld, one associate, declined formal immunity, spoke informally with investigators under an oral nonprosecution promise that he believed immunized him broadly.
Counsel misadvised Stadfeld that the nonprosecution promise covered both state and federal use of his statements.
In 2008, the U.S. Attorney used Stadfeld’s statements to indict him for conspiracy to distribute marijuana; Stadfeld moved to suppress, arguing involuntariness due to mistaken immunity.
District court denied suppression, holding no coercion and that any misunderstanding did not render statements involuntary; district court also found Stadfeld breached the supposed immunity by lying.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stadfeld’s statements were involuntary due to erroneous counsel advice	Stadfeld contends lack of coercion; belief in immunity from counsel misled him	Government argues no coercion; immunity was conditional and not comprehensive	No involuntariness; erroneous advice alone does not render statements involuntary
Whether the John Doe proceeding affected Stadfeld’s Sixth Amendment rights	Right to counsel attaches at adversarial proceedings; John Doe implicates counsel	John Doe is nonadversarial; no Sixth Amendment trigger	No Sixth Amendment violation; counsel not required during John Doe interrogations
Whether district court abused its discretion by excluding Mortier’s disappearance/John Doe evidence	Evidence would impeach coconspirators’ credibility	Evidence would divert to collateral issue	No abuse; exclusion appropriate to avoid trial diversion; cross-examination sufficed
Whether the failure to produce interview notes violated rights or affected credibility	Notes essential to challenge investigator credibility	Notes not shown to be inconsistent with reports; argument undeveloped	Argument waived; no reversible error
Whether sentencing used correct scope of jointly undertaken conduct for drug quantity	Stadfeld jointly undertook entire conspiracy activities	Scope supported by district court findings; Stadfeld knew details and participated long-term	Findings not clearly erroneous; Stadfeld accountable for jointly undertaken conduct

Cahill v. United States, 920 F.2d 421 (7th Cir. 1990) (perception of immunity not dispositive; coercion analysis remains central)
Cichon v. United States, 48 F.3d 269 (7th Cir. 1995) (reaffirmed that belief in immunity must be objectively reasonable; no coercion absent government misrepresentation)
United States v. Huerta, 239 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2001) (coercive police activity required for involuntariness under due process)
United States v. Shears, 762 F.2d 397 (4th Cir. 1985) (perceived government promises affect voluntariness analysis)
United States v. Baldwin, 60 F.3d 363 (7th Cir. 1995) (false promises of leniency can render statements involuntary)