G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1979 ·
…substantial government interference with a defense witness' free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process
✓
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases ·
…substantial government interference with a defense witness' free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process.
at p. 198
✓
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony Abbatiello v. Brian Emig, Warden, and Attorney General of the State of Delaware
United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1997); see Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 , 95–97 (1972); Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210, 260 (3d Cir. 2004); Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Mills, 956 F.2d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 1992) (“The Compulsory Process clause protects the presentation of the defendant’s case from unwarranted interference by the government, be it in the form of an unnecessary evidentiary rule, a prosecutor’s misconduct, or an arbitrary ruling by the trial judge.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Sean Gerald Penoncello
Cf. United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (substantial government interference with defense witness’s free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Darryl Colbert v. State of Minnesota
See, e.g., United States v. Serrano, 406 F.3d 1208, 1216 (10th Cir.2005); United States v. Jackson, 935 F.2d 832, 846 (7th Cir.1991); Demps v. Wainwright, 805 F.2d 1426, 1433 (11th Cir.1986); Peeler v. Wyrick, 734 F.2d 378, 381 (8th Cir.1984); United States v. Teague,, 737 F.2d 378, 383 (4th Cir.1984); United States v. Little, 753 F.2d 1420, 1439 (9th Cir.1984); United States v, Crawford, 707 F.2d 447, 449 (10th Cir.1983); United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 703 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holland v. Pierce
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977); see also Lambert v. Blackwell, 387 F.3d 210 , 260 (3d Cir.2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jean Rene Duperval
“Substantial Government interference with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process.” United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Jean Rene Duperval
(2×)
“Substantial Government inference with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process.” United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Arizona v. Veronica Sanchez-Equihua
(4×)
E.g., Maples v. Stegall, 427 F.3d 1020, 1033-34 (6th Cir. 2005) (plea requirement to not testify on codefendant’s behalf impaired defense and may have violated right to compulsory process); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977) (agreement not to testify in any manner regarding 6 STATE v. SANCHEZ-EQUIHUA Opinion of the Court codefendant constituted substantial interference with witness’s choice to testify and violated due process); State v. Asher, 861 P.2d 847, 850-51 (Kan.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Blazas
See, e.g., Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 17-18 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1922-23 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1022-23 (1967) (holding two state statutes that prohibited co-indictees from testifying for one another violated the Sixth Amendment); Newell v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827, 837-838 (7th Cir.2002) (prosecutor offered to dismiss criminal charge against witness if he did not testify for defense); United States v. Vavag-es, 151 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.1998) (prosecutor repeatedly warned attorney for alibi witness that if she testified falsely, the government could bring perjury charges against her and withdraw…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Woods v. Adams
Cf. United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (plea bargain that required that if witness testified in any manner regarding defendant plea bargain would be void and *1280 witness would be tried constituted prosecutorial misconduct; “substantial” government interference with witness’s choice to testify violates due process).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Juliette Petit Frere
See Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d at 1108-09 (holding that there was no due process violation where the plea agreement required the defense witness to provide truthful testimony); cf. United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (holding that the defendant’s due process rights were violated because the plea agreement prohibited a defense witness from testifying “in any manner” regarding the defendant).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Edmond
“Prosecutorial misconduct is ‘action or inaction by a prosecutor in violation of some legal norm or standard, e.g., a constitutional provision, a statute, a Manual rule, or an applicable professional ethics canon.’ ” Id. (quoting Meek, 44 M.J. at 5 ). *348 As the DuBay judge noted in his conclusions of law, this court has held that “[sjeveral legal norms are violated when a trial counsel attempts to or unlawfully dissuades a defense witness from testifying at a court-martial.” Meek, 44 M.J. at 5 ; see also Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (holdi…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Calderon
See, e.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 97-98 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (defense witness intimidated into not testifying by remarks of trial judge); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (right to present witnesses to establish defense is fundamental to due process); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (defense witness intimidated by terms of codefendant’s plea bargain); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 226-28 (3rd Cir.1976) (defense witness intimidated by prosecutor’s remarks); United States v. Thomas, 4…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Schlei
United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Dupre
(2×)
Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98 , 93 S.Ct. 351, 353-54 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972). “[S]ubstantial governmental interference with a defense witness’ choice to testify may violate the due process rights of the defendant.” United States v. Whittington, 783 F.2d 1210, 1219 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882 , 107 S.Ct. 269 , 93 L.Ed.2d 246 (1986); see, e.g., United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir.1979) (reversing because FBI agent told defense witness that he would have “nothing but trouble” in pending state prosecution if he persisted in testifying); United States v. Hen…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bhagwat v. State
See Jones v. United States, 386 A.2d 308 , 316 n. 7 (D.C.App.1978), ce rt. denied, 444 U.S. 925 , 100 S.Ct. 263 , 62 L.Ed.2d 181 (1979) (“There is no question that the government’s use of a plea bargain in order to induce or encourage a witness’ silence cannot be tolerated.”); United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 222 (D.C.Cir.1974) (“Inarguably, governmental impairment of the accused’s ability to call witnesses in his [or her] behalf cannot be tolerated.”); People v. Fryer, 247 Ill.App.3d 1051 , 187 Ill.Dec. 786, 795 , 618 N.E.2d 377, 386 (1993) (“It is one thing to condition a…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Peterson
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
It will also be held against you in the penitentiary when you’re up for parole.”); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (prosecutor told eodefend-ant that he “would” be tried on all counts of the indictment, and his plea agreement “would” be void, if he testified); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 225-26 (3rd Cir.1976) (prosecutor told defense witness that her testimony “would” be used against her in drug prosecution, and that perjury charges were “possible,” if she testified). 3 On the other hand, when the prosecutor or the tri…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. George Erman Dago, Also Known as Robert Duran, Also Known as Paul Vigil, Also Known as George Battaglia
In United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977), the court found a plea agreement, which stated a codefendant could not testify in any manner about the defendant, violated defendant's due process rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Charles Okeezie
See United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, 1013 (5th Cir.1979) (defendant deprived of due process where FBI officer told defense witness who was indicted for a crime in another state that he "would have nothing but trouble" if he testified on behalf of the defendant), reh'g on other grounds, 605 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. Henrickson, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (conviction reversed where government entered into plea bargain with co-defendant whose testimony would have exonerated defendant where the plea bargain provided that the co-defendant would not testify in any manne…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heller v. Plave
E.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (remarks of trial judge intimidated defense witness); United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, 1013 (5th Cir.1979) (defense witness reasonably interpreted FBI agent’s comments as threats to retaliate if he testified); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1976) (defense witness intimidated by plea bargain); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 227-228 (3rd Cir.1976) (defense witness intimidated by remarks of U.S. attorney); United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir.1973) (secret service agent t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Bell
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. MacCloskey, 682 F.2d 468, 479 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir. 1977).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennie E. Demps v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, and Jim Smith, Attorney General, State of Florida
United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 703 (5th Cir.1980); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. F. Thomas Little, United States of America v. Peter Chernik, United States of America v. Harold Grutchfield
See Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 97-98 , 93 S.Ct. 351, 353-354 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (defense witness intimidated into not testifying by remarks of trial judge); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967) (right to present witness to establish defense is fundamental to due process); *1439 United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 703 (5th Cir.1980); and United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, 1012-15 (5th Cir.1979) (defense witnesses intimidated by FBI agent during court recess and by subpoena to appear before a grand jury); United States v. Henricksen,…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Roosevelt Green, Jr. v. Walter D. Zant
In United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 702-03 (5th Cir.1980), United States v. Hammond, 598 F.2d 1008, 1012-15 (5th Cir.), modified, 605 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1979), and United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977), the defendants claimed that government agents had improperly pressured potential defense witnesses to discourage their testimony at trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel Howard Peeler and Dennis Alan Peeler v. Donald Wyrick, Warden and Attorney General, State of Missouri
(2×)
See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 110 , 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2401 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) ("If the suppression of evidence results in constitutional error, it is because of the character of the evidence, not the character of the prosecutor."); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) ("[S]uppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution."). 16 Nonetheless, the typical witness i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Claude L. Blackwell
(2×)
See United States v. Pardo, 636 F.2d 535 , 540 n. 15 (D.C.Cir.1980) (government specifically disclaimed any right to enforce the part of a plea agreement which required a potential defense witness to refuse to testify for the defense); United States v. Bell, 506 F.2d 207, 222 (D.C.Cir.1974) (government impairment of the accused’s ability to call witnesses in his behalf by conditioning its acceptance of the witnesses’ pleas upon their refusal to testify for the defendant cannot be tolerated); United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197, 198 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (Department of Justice c…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Vasquez-Hernandez
Compare Henricksen , 564 F.2d at 198 , with Hernandez , 347 F.Supp.2d at 389 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
David A. Maples v. Jimmy Stegall, Warden
See, e.g., United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1977) (holding government violated due process when it told the co-defendant that his plea agreement would be void if he testified for a co-defendant); United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (defendants’ right to compulsory process violated when prosecutor threatened to prosecute defendant’s wife for perjury or withdraw her plea agreement if she testified); United States v. Golding, 168 F.3d 700, 702-04 (4th Cir.1999) (defendant’s right to compulsory process violated when prosecutor threatened to initiate…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maples v. Stegall
See, e.g., United States v Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir. 1977) (holding government violated due process when it told the co-defendant that his plea agreement would be void if he testified for a co-defendant); United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (defendants’ right to compulsory process violated when prosecutor threatened to prosecute defendant's wife for perjury or withdraw her plea agreement if she testified); United States v. Golding, 168 F.3d 700, 702-04 (4th Cir. 1999) (defendant’s right to compulsory process violated when prosecutor threatened to initiate…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Richard A. Whittington, Richard Wolfe and W. Lewis Demoss, Jr., Defendants
See also United States v. Henricksen, 564 F.2d 197 (5th Cir.1977) (defense witness intimidated by terms of a plea bargain). 22 . 535 F.2d 223 (3d Cir.1976). 23 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo HENRICKSEN, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo HENRICKSEN, Defendant-Appellant
77-5159.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 8, 1977.
Gerald H. Goldstein, San Antonio, Tex., for defendant-appellant., Jamie C. Boyd, U. S. Atty., LeRoy Morgan Jahn, Robert S. Bennett, Asst. U. S. Attys., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Thornberry, Roney, Hill.
Cited by 60 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
Defendant Sherryl Lynn Grimsbo Henricksen was convicted of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute, and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 846, 841(a)(1). Prior to trial, a codefendant, whose testimony would have tended to exonerate Henricksen, plea bargained with the Government. As part of his plea, he had to agree not to testify in any manner regarding Henricksen. If he did testify, the Government stated the agreement would be void, and he would be tried on all counts of the indictment. The codefendant refused to testify.
The Government, with the concurrence of the Justice Department and the trial judge, has now confessed error on this point and has requested that we reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Based upon an independent examination of the record, we conclude that the Government’s confession of error is in order. Substantial Government interference with a defense witness’ free and unhampered choice to testify violates due process. United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3d Cir. 1976); United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir. 1973). See United States v. Valdes, 545 F.2d 957, 959-961 (5th Cir. 1977).
The judgment of conviction is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.