# Jaggers v. United States

> District of Columbia Court of Appeals · October 2, 1984 · 482 A.2d 786

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758073

## Case

- **Full name:** Gary W. JAGGERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee
- **Court:** District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 2, 1984
- **Citations:** 482 A.2d 786; 1984 D.C. App. LEXIS 499
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newman
- **Judges:** Newman, Pryor, Kern
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part by Carter v. United States, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 225 (1996).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758073

## Opinion text

NEWMAN, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I join fully the Per Curiam opinion and write briefly to add the following which the trial court may find helpful in its analysis on remand.
Although the record shows that no drug or drug paraphernalia were seized at the time of the arrest, this record does not present a case of an absolute bar to prosecution based on the corroboration requirement. The record discloses that Jaggers testified as follows at the hearing on the motion to suppress his confession:
Q. Now, at the time that you were down at the police station that morning, were you under the influence of any drugs or alcohol?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And could you tell the Court what drugs, if any, you had taken?
A. I took a gram of cocaine that night.
Q. What time that night?
A. Approximately 1:00 a.m.
Q. And how did that make you feel, say about 5:30 or 6:00 a.m. in the morning?
*797 A. Unstable person can’t think very clearly, makes you hallucinate sometimes, depends on how much you take.
Further, the record indicates a proffer by Jaggers that the records of the Pre-trial Services Agency reflect that Jaggers told an interviewer for that agency that he had used cocaine on the day of his arrest.
In any prosecution of Stoddard, these statements would be inadmissible hearsay; Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). To provide the corroboration required by our decisions, the prosecution would have to attempt to call Jaggers as a witness at the trial of Stoddard. In such event, Jaggers could seek to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege. Since his prior trial testimony and statement to the Pre-trial Service examiner were in a different proceeding, he has not waived his privilege. Salim v. United States, supra, at 714, 715; Ellis v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 35 , 416 F.2d 791 (1969). Thus Jaggers would meet the first prong of the test for invoking the privilege. The court would then be required to address the second prong. If it determines against Jaggers on this point, he could be ordered to testify. If the court sustained the privilege, the Corporation Counsel could seek an immunity grant by the United States.
No reason appears of record for the court declining to request the Corporation Counsel not to prosecute in the case presently before us, and none has been suggested to us. While the Office of the Corporation Counsel does not have statutory authority to grant immunity, its agreement not to prosecute is a fundamental equivalent thereof. Of course, a witness who has received a grant of immunity does not have the right to refuse to testify. United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564, 575 , 96 S.Ct. 1768, 1776 , 48 L.Ed.2d 212 (1976).
Since the government has the burden of proof on this issue on remand, Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967), mandates that it must bear the burden of witness unavailability, failed memory since the time of trial, or other impediment to the taking of Stod-dard’s testimony.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9758073. Public record. Not legal advice.