United States v. Mike, 55 V.I. 1349

Jamaal Mike was convicted by a jury of aiding and abetting receipt of a firearm acquired outside his state of residence and unauthorized possession of a firearm under Virgin Islands law.
A firearm (AK-47) and two 30-round magazines were placed for a controlled delivery after being found in a package intercepted in Puerto Rico and addressed to a fictitious recipient in the Virgin Islands.
Mike, Reid, and a juvenile Hunte were arrested at the Sugar Estate post office in St. Thomas; none possessed a license to possess firearms.
Fenyang Ouma Francis, who addressed the firearm, pleaded guilty and offered to testify for Mike and Reid; he indicated he might testify, prompting Mike to subpoena him.
Mike sought use immunity for Francis; the district court denied it, concluding Francis’s testimony would not be clearly exculpatory; trial proceeded and Mike was convicted.
Mike challenges (i) the denial of use immunity, (ii) sufficiency of evidence that the AK-47 could discharge ammunition, and (iii) an affirmative defense under Virgin Islands law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying use immunity to Francis	Mike asserts Francis’s testimony would be clearly exculpatory and needed for a fair trial.	The court properly applied Smith’s five conditions and found Francis’s testimony not clearly exculpatory.	No abuse of discretion; immunity denied
Whether there is sufficient evidence that the AK-47 possessed by Mike was capable of discharging ammunition	Mike argues the firearm was inoperable when received and therefore not a firearm under VI law.	The weapon was capable of discharging ammunition; operability is not required by § 451(d).	Rational jury could find capability to discharge ammunition; conviction affirmed
Whether Mike was entitled to acquittal or a jury instruction under the § 470 affirmative defense	The gun shipment could be defended under § 470 by an immediate reporting defense.	§ 470’s wording requires immediate reporting; evidence shows no intent to report.	No acquittal or instruction; defense not supported

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (due process requires opportunity to present clearly exculpatory evidence)
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Smith, 615 F.2d 964 (3d Cir. 1980) (use immunity as remedy where testimony is clearly exculpatory)
United States v. Thomas, 357 F.3d 357 (3d Cir. 2004) (immunity denied when proffered testimony is not clearly exculpatory)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) (use immunity suffices to compel testimony by removing Fifth Amendment barrier)
Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 (1968) (immunity bounded by safeguards; credibility concerns limited)
Ammar v. United States, 714 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983) (use immunity inappropriate when testimony is only speculative)
United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing district court decisions)