# United States v. Adalberto Cervantes-Pacheco, Jerry Wayne Nelson and William E. Nelson

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 21, 1987 · 826 F.2d 310

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476577

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adalberto CERVANTES-PACHECO, Jerry Wayne Nelson and William E. Nelson, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 21, 1987
- **Citations:** 826 F.2d 310; 23 Fed. R. Serv. 1232; 56 U.S.L.W. 2175; 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 12015
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Goldberg
- **Judges:** Clark, Goldberg, Gee, Rubin, Reavley, Politz, Randall, Williams, Garwood, Jolly, Higginbotham, Davis, Hill, Jones
- **Cited by:** 135 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476577

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that informant who receives contingent fee is not disqualified from testifying, and stating that, "[a]s in the case of the witness who has been promised a reduced sentence, it is up to the jury to evaluate the credibility of the compensated witness.”
- noting that “[n]o practice is more ingrained in our criminal justice system than the practice of the government calling a witness who is an accessory to the crime to which the defendant is charged and having that witness testify under a plea bargain that promises him a reduced…
- noting that “employment of a witness for a fee con- tingent upon victory for the party in whose favor he testifies Nos. 04-2557, 04-2592 17 is a violation of both the Model Rules of Professional Conduct [Rule 3.4] and the Code of Professional Responsi- bility [DR 7-109]”
- noting that "employment of a witness for a fee contingent upon victory for the party in whose favor he testifies is a violation of both the Model Rules of Professional Conduct [Rule 3.4] and the Code of Professional Responsibility [DR 7-109]"
- holding that contingent compensation for witnesses may occur as long as the nature of such compensation is fully disclosed to the jury

## Opinion text

GOLDBERG, Circuit Judge, with whom JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge
joins, dissenting:
Adhering to the views expressed in the panel opinion, I respectfully dissent. The truth has no marketplace.
I write only to express three simple propositions. First, notwithstanding the majority’s conclusion to the contrary, I continue to believe that Kelly’s contingent fee depended upon the outcome of the case and the quality of his testimony. Second, the Williamson rule not only is wise policy, it is necessary to protect the very integrity of the judicial system and to ensure that testimony will not be bought. Third, that plea-bargaining creates incentives to lie does not point out the lack of problems with contingent fees and associated testimony, but rather the presence of problems with plea-bargaining and associated testimony.
These simple propositions recall the eloquent words of Justice Brandéis:
*317 The court’s aid is denied only when he who seeks it has violated the law in connection with the very transaction as to which he seeks legal redress. Then aid is denied despite the defendant’s wrong. It is denied in order to maintain respect for law; in order to promote confidence in the administration of justice; in order to preserve the judicial process from contamination____
Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example____ To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal — would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court should resolutely set its face.
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 484 , 48 S.Ct. 564, 574-75 , 72 L.Ed. 944 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) (footnote omitted).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9476577. Public record. Not legal advice.