United States v. Wright, 634 F.3d 917

Wright and Holt, close friends, sold guns to Estrada, who was secretly an ATF confidential informant and a felon.
Estrada’s felon status was disclosed during the October 25 sale; recording of both transactions existed for trial.
Holt was initially on the government’s witness list but was deemed untruthful in interview, leading to him not testifying.
Holt asserted Fifth Amendment privilege when called to testify; district court found him unavailable.
Wright urged the government to seek immunity for Holt to secure potentially exculpatory testimony; the government refused.
Trial concluded with Wright convicted on two counts; he appealed alleging improper colloquy and prosecutorial/ due process issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a colloquy was required before Holt could assert the Fifth Amendment	Wright	Wright	No abuse; no mandatory colloquy needed
Whether the government’s immunity decision violated Fifth Amendment due process	Wright	Wright	No due process violation; no prosecutorial abuse proven
Whether the government’s decision not to immunize Holt was an abuse of prosecutorial discretion	Wright	Wright	No abuse; discretion within bounds

United States v. Longstreet, 567 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2009) (advises courts to confirm witness cannot incriminate themselves when Fifth is invoked)
United States v. Hooks, 848 F.2d 785 (7th Cir. 1988) (treatment of Fifth Amendment privilege and related procedures)
United States v. Taylor, 728 F.2d 930 (7th Cir. 1984) (immunity and prosecutorial discretion considerations)
United States v. Mabrook, 301 F.3d 503 (7th Cir. 2002) (necessity of colloquy when witness testifying could incriminate)
United States v. Herrera-Medina, 853 F.2d 564 (7th Cir. 1988) (sharp tactics and due process concerns regarding immunity decisions)
Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (S. Ct. 1999) (defendant may invoke Fifth Amendment before sentencing)