# United States v. Sonya Evette Singleton, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amicus Curiae

> Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · January 8, 1999 · 165 F.3d 1297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9491827

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sonya Evette SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amicus Curiae
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 8, 1999
- **Citations:** 165 F.3d 1297; 1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 590; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 222; 1999 WL 6469
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henry
- **Judges:** Seymour, Porfilio, Anderson, Tacha, Baldock, Brorby, Ebel, Kelly, Henry, Briscoe, Lucero, Murphy
- **Cited by:** 288 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/9491827

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that at common law in most jurisdictions it is improper to pay occurrence witness any fee for testimony, and that agreements to pay fact witnesses are generally void as contrary to public policy and for lack of consideration
- holding that a witness such as Gibson’s co- conspirator may testify for the prosecution in exchange for a promise of leniency form the government
- holding that including the government within “whoever” would be absurd and would deprive the sovereign of an established prerogative
- holding that the U.S. Attorney’s Office “is the alter ego of the United States exercising its sovereign power of prosecution”

## Opinion text

HENRY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
This difficult case has spawned three excellent opinions. Judge Lucero’s concurrence resolves the case most convincingly for me, and I join that concurrence.
I write briefly to add that this problem may arise again. As the dissent notes, Congress has recently passed legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joe McDade and endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Corporate Counsel Association, 1 that repeals the Thornburgh memorandum. It di *1303 rects that government attorneys — most of whom are 'licensed in the state in which they practice — be subject to state ethical rules. Thus, the dissent’s suggestions as to other tactics that might be employed may deserve close scrutiny.
Further, I note that although I believe the majority is correct on the tradition argument, I do not see the statute as construed by the dissent as patently absurd. I do see that its operation as construed by the dissent would work what might be called a legal absurdity, in that Congress would have criminalized the general practice. I simply do not believe Congressional intent could have been to criminalize the widespread and common practice of government lawyers.
. See Harvey Berkman, Thornburgh Rule is Nixed, The National Law Journal, Nov. 2, 1998, at A8.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9491827. Public record. Not legal advice.