UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
July 22, 1982
In re GRAND JURY SUBPOENA; In re Kaare GILBOE, Jr.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: SPRIZZO
On November 6, 1981, Kaare Gilboe, Jr. was found guilty by a jury of four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (1976), and four counts of interstate and international transportation of money and securities obtained by fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (1976). He was sentenced on December 11, 1981. Gilboe is presently serving that sentence and has appealed his conviction.
On April 14, 1982, Gilboe was summoned to appear before a grand jury investigating other persons involved in the transactions for which Gilboe was convicted as well as the location of the proceeds of the aforementioned transactions. Gilboe refused to answer questions before the grand jury, claiming his Fifth Amendment privilege. Thereafter, on April 29, 1982, the Government sought and obtained an Order of immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 (1976), directing Gilboe to testify before the grand jury. Gilboe now moves to quash the subpoena directing him to appear before the grand jury on the ground that, as a convicted defendant with an appeal pending, his testimony cannot be constitutionally compelled.
That claim is untenable. Gilboe has been convicted and sentenced for the transactions which are the subject of the grand jury investigation. Moreover, he has been granted immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6002 with respect to the use of any compelled testimony and any evidence derived directly and indirectly therefrom in any future criminal prosecutions. In view of these circumstances, there can be no merit to Gilboe's contention that his testimony may not properly be compelled. In re Liddy, 165 U.S. App. D.C. 254, 506 F.2d 1293, 1300 (D.C.Cir.1974) (en banc). This is not a case in which a potential defendant is being compelled to testify before a grand jury which is being asked to indict him. See Goldberg v. United States, 472 F.2d 513, 516 (2d Cir. 1973).
The fact that Gilboe's appeal is pending is of no consequence. In view of the heavy burden placed on the Government to establish that it did not make any direct or indirect use of Gilboe's immunized testimony, see Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 92 S. Ct. 1653, 32 L. Ed. 2d 212 (1972), it seems clear that if Gilboe's conviction is reversed on appeal, the Government will be limited at any retrial to the facts elicited at Gilboe's first trial.*
It follows that Gilboe's motion to quash the subpoena directing him to appear before the grand jury is denied.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.