People v. Adams, 43 N.Y.2d 102 (1977)

The prosecution is not generally obligated to grant immunity to a potential defense witness, even if that witness is an informant who could offer exculpatory testimony, unless the informant was an active participant in the crime as an agent of law enforcement.

Summary

Adams was convicted of drug charges. At trial, he argued entrapment and sought to call Fodderell, a confidential informant, as a witness. Fodderell, already serving a federal sentence, invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The trial court urged the prosecution to grant Fodderell immunity, but they refused. Adams argued this refusal violated his rights. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the prosecution wasn’t obligated to grant immunity because Fodderell was merely a facilitator and observer, not an active participant in the crime. The Court distinguished situations where the informant acts as an agent of law enforcement.

Facts

Earl Fodderell, a narcotics distributor, became a confidential informant after pleading guilty to federal charges.

Fodderell provided information leading to the investigation of Adams and participated in planning controlled drug purchases from Adams.

Fodderell introduced an undercover officer to Gardner, who acted as an intermediary in the drug sales, and helped arrange meetings.

Fodderell was present at one sale where money was exchanged and details of a later transfer from Adams were arranged and may have been an eyewitness to the sale of heroin by Adams to the undercover officer.

Procedural History

Adams was convicted after a jury trial.

He appealed, arguing that the prosecution’s failure to grant immunity to Fodderell was prejudicial error.

The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction.

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.

Issue(s)

Whether the prosecution’s failure to grant immunity to a potential defense witness who invokes their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination constitutes a denial of due process or the right to a fair trial when that witness is a confidential informant who could offer exculpatory testimony.

Holding

No, because in the circumstances of this case, the confidential informant was not an active participant in the criminal transaction, and the prosecution, therefore, had no obligation to grant immunity to make his testimony available to the defendant.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is not absolute and does not compel testimony over a valid claim of privilege, such as the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court noted that the key consideration is whether the prosecution suppressed evidence favorable to the accused, violating due process under Brady v. Maryland. However, there was no suppression here because the defendant knew the informant’s identity and had the opportunity to interview him.

The Court distinguished this case from situations where the informant is an active participant in the criminal transaction as an agent of law enforcement. In such cases, the prosecution might be required to grant immunity or face dismissal of the prosecution to ensure a fair trial. However, because Fodderell was merely a facilitator and observer, not an active participant, the prosecution was not obligated to grant immunity. The Court emphasized Fodderell’s limited involvement: “In the present instance, at most Fodderell was a facilitator and an observer… In short, his was the now familiar role of the informer; he was not an actor in the criminal transactions.”

The court also rejected the argument that the defendant was prejudiced by not being able to call Fodderell to the stand and force him to invoke his Fifth Amendment right in front of the jury.