United States v. Raymond Contreras, William Ray Soto, Reynaldo Garcia, Jr., and Kenneth James Cassie

Each of the appellants was convicted following a stipulated facts trial in federal district court for violations of RICO provisions (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968 (1982). Before the federal investigation leading to the convictions, the appellants had given extensive information to state officers under a state grant of immunity. The *735 statements and testimony subject to the state immunity involved the same incidents that were the basis for the subsequent federal RICO prosecution. Before the federal trial, the district court held a four day hearing to determine whether the Government’s evidence was derived from sources independent of the state immunized testimony, and whether the appellants had waived their fifth amendment rights before talking with federal agents and testifying before the federal grand jury. The court held that the Government had satisfied its burden of proving that its evidence was based on independent sources, and that defendants had waived their self-incrimination rights. We find no error and affirm.

We recite the background of the state investigation and the federal prosecution. The appellants were serving prison…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in all of Judge Kennedy’s opinion except that portion holding that the defendants made a knowing and intelligent waiver of their fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination before submitting to interrogation by federal agents and testifying before the federal grand jury. As Judge Kennedy has pointed out, all of the defendants had previously made extensive statements under a state grant of immunity. Federal agents, according to their testimony, not only gave the standard Miranda warnings, but also advised the defendants, variously, as follows: that “any grants of immunity promised to them by any state court ... was [sic] not binding on the Federal Court and, therefore, did not apply on the Federal Court, and, therefore, did not apply in the Federal investigation” (TR 19-20); that the state-court-granted immunity would or did “not apply in Federal Court” (TR 133); or that “no deals whatsoever in state court would be — would apply or be binding in Federal Court” (TR 148). In the circumstances of this case, I believe that these statements were fatally misleading. They failed to make clear that federal authorities were…

755 F.2d 733 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond CONTRERAS, William Ray Soto, Reynaldo Garcia, Jr., and Kenneth James Cassie, Defendants-Appellants. Nos. 83-1052, 83-1055, 83-1089 and 83-1105. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 16, 1984. Decided March 15, 1985. David Rodriguez, Asst. U.S. Atty., Sacramento, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. James D. Skow, Sacramento, Cal., Gilbert A. Roque, Woodland, Cal., Gerald Singer, Timothy P. Murphy, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants-appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before KENNEDY and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and RYAN, * District Judge. KENNEDY, Circuit Judge: 1 Each of the appellants was convicted following a stipulated facts trial in federal district court for violations of RICO provisions (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961-1968 (1982). Their trial was on stipulated facts. Before the federal investigation leading to the convictions, the appellants had given extensive information to state officers under a state grant of immunity. The statements and testimony subject to the state immunity…