Skip to content

Judicial Watch • OIS Cases ChinaGate-Transmissions nonpart

OIS Cases ChinaGate-Transmissions nonpart

OIS Cases ChinaGate-Transmissions nonpart

Page 1: OIS Cases ChinaGate-Transmissions nonpart

Category:Obtained Document

Number of Pages:20

Date Created:April 14, 1999

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013

Tags:perjury, waive, responses, facts, matter, testimony, privilege, prior, witness, question, amendment, rights, deposition, Attorney, trial, pound, watch, plaintiff, judicial, states, court, united, EPA, IRS, ICE, CIA


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

lJNI:r"ED STATES DISTRICT COURT ?OR THE DISTRICT COLOMBIA 

Judicial Watch, i.ng the Depart;IT,ent' responses plaintiff's FOrA reg>oeat aurfacd, and ir. light f those developments, both pl,,intiff and the district court have 

making perjur1ou.s staoements. 
The dis trict court granted Judicial Watch's mot i.on secure alCtionl testi,nony December 22, lS8 --without position from the oepartment Coromerce --but the court nttl tfiat ""plaintit;f'  request rdepose !!u'"'J has not been oerved 
:i,.J Oci;ober 3i, 1996, th@ istr!.!r. RUang thus n. 20. 
Adopting Judicial watch' one-aidt;,d --and unsuPonable tBstimony. slip op. 11. ldecidJ.ng b._sis ol; plai.tiff's rapreentations that "litle [Huang"s) deposition testimony particularlv cedible"I 
Thus, grant>ng addirional discovery HcLO.ng and oc_e othe" witru>so, the court ose1'"Ved tht "[h)ad the depnents been forthrighc J.n t_eir iitial dposition$ (and appars that they wera not], second deposition may not necssa::y, but nder 
anew. Wo.tch op. 20. Mr. Huo.ng moved for reconsideration Janury lS99, 
diatriot court granted motion. court, .owaver, denied 
the reJ.ief equested and determined tba 1ould "perm:ct che 
deposi.tion Mr. Huang continue scl1eduled tl;e Magitrate Judge" April 13, 1999. 
instances," "decline[d] substantially revise its credibility findings" adverse Mr. Huans. Mem. 2-3. contrary its e'1rlier stacements, the disrely being deposed previously this matter over two and 
half years go, Mr. Ruang waived his constitutional r;ghts under 
the Fifth Arr.endrrtnt, (2) the nature and etenc tb.e 
authcrity the Mag>strate Jue evluate arui adjudge the 
proprity Mr. Huang's reliance th Fifth i>mendmnt Although the Magistrate Judge only requested memoranda addressing issus related-to the Fifth Amendment pl:"ivilege, >Ir. Hung speCLf!.cally prese.-Ves all prior objectio11s his redeposition, including h;s conteOion hat ohe distict cout longer has jurisdiction over th;s matter. :rh.e Commerce 
wno,,::r'Il::rm 
'O or.en l
""' >-'O.WH>Wro o .._.P 
rtu. Pmm e-P o." Pmro 
 OWr>
'1CT-'n 
,," 
O.< 

Cl.0 
cn"o e-'1
>--"
t!mw'O.tli> m:>:>e  C''" 
;;; -"'
,,,._ .,, 
....
>-'ID OOO.l-' >-' '" ,_,."'" """ ,__.
p 

I

"

""'"ae l'.ull :cuit
D.C. that tha wit had wived the privilege. 133 ;.3d at: 2S. (quotation orruted). Despite the fact that the witness had obviously gi,,..n i=riminating testimony, the Courries --he would refleively dibelieved and district court might well refe the matter the U.S. Attorney for periucy investigation. And Mr. Huang's fear wae entirely legitimate. hesCoaoion retsrring mtters the U.S. Attornl!!y fer such investistiOM whBn has suspected witnsses perjury. .,,hus. any testimony corrcernig the veracity Mr. Huang's prior 
testionony posed 'real Q,,nger' frther criminat1on." Like 
right against self-inc=irnJ.nation. 
More fundamentally. wll sttled tb.at witness who testfies under oath does not waive his Fifth Amendment rOght against self,inerionaoJ.o:n adm.i.ts inc,.1nin..ting fact. 0!62 U.S. 355, >59 11923) {S] inca find tha.; ""'-"" the "'--""""'"'""" had been 
"hch volunta1ly g1v.,n amounted adm1sson oz: showing gilt, a"e 0 the opinion that [the witnss] was entitled decline answer further queseions when might tend incriminate him."); 6B2 .2d 46S, 478 r.. (4th Cir. 982) ("The :act that [the Witn..ss] teoti!ied the V"Oir dire haring do not, >tself, Ol!an that she 
only l'r1or testimony raJ.d i'1rim1!'.at 1ng facts. 
tl'.e United Jame, 009 P.2d (2d Cir. 1979), cert_ U.S. 905 (l980) {no waiver privilege where witness did not disclose anything that might c._""-rcterized 1ncr1rninating) witness who has not disclos inrt' intended scope the. deposition, Oct. 2S, 1996 Order at>, including whethe:c had engaged fundraising after leaving t"_e Department o:O Corr,me;:cce. HUang responded candidly these questio""; none his responses could implicate him any 
Not aurpriSiP_gly, Judicial Watch =als specifically ide"tfy =earlier testiffiony tl1at contained """' incriminating statement. The predicate for the waiver argci--nenc whicn JUdicial Watch rlies therefore aben discussed, since Mr. H""ng's octobr l96 depositon. certai facts and allegations have surfacd that have caused beth plaitiff and the d>strict court ccuue Mr. Huang -a>oioUs actions that could well subject him crimi""l proaeoution. When quastioned his April 13, 1999 deposition, therefore, Huang asserted his privilege aginat self
ncriminaoion "nenever t.e belie (1951) ("(W)her-mnating. 
Even Mr_ Huang dscled something 1ncriminat1g his October 1996 deposiion, was still entitled in;-okc the Fifth Amendroen hia -Fril lSS9, ds""stion. admio31on incriminati"S" face most naives t"-e privilege details surrounding that James, F.2d 
l"[W]here criminat1ng factS been voluntarily re,,.,aled, the privlege cannot ivoked avoid disclosure the details.") 
lqUotcig :iO U.S. 367, 373 11511): States, 283 '-d 345, 352 {9th Cir. 1960) l"'[i'.]dtoission c>:imi:iating fact ""'-Y waivs the piv1le9e details that fact, lo'1g they not furthor i.ncriminate."). TC.eNatch elicit
test,mony .Judioial sought Huang's April 13, 1999 Ceposition did not pertain ar:y "detuils" about fcto '"hih HUang had testified his 
-l:J 
that seeks details aurrounding any prevously dislosed 
icrintinating fact-
paintiff intends o>ngage f.ccordinsly, Mr. Euans was justified asse,,ting the p_riv1lgerespo.'lses
whenever beJ. his would have been incriminati"9
II. 	MR. HUANG PROPERY INVOKED EIS FIFTE AMENDMlWr RIG!ITS UN!JEF-THE STANDARDS FOR EVAJ:,UATih'G O'llE FI?l:H llM'lNDMRNT PHIVJ:LSG1' AGAINST SELF INClUMINATION. 
Fifth Amend!r.ent should sustained utlder tne cl.early-stated and 
Cioocuit. have consistently used judge assertiar.o the 1''1 fif A-,,endmec.t, "(i)t tl-_e tri2l judge's >:ole and responsibility assess the plaus,1lity the the fifth amendenc privilege." L"nited 733 F.2ci 
Neve>:rheJ.ss, "the cou,;t t11ay not fo>:ce the Witness pocove cht w1ll 1.!.'.  incriminate himsel tesoimcc,y." Reese, 56l F.2d 900 
-13  I   'fl  :'l :'l fl' 
  	i 
"ro
""m 
"",,
o."o"
,... .... "

oo,,
Sp"'
 
,,_ 


 ... ,,.  ,,. ...



p.,,,,.,"g.m.go
,,. 
 
,,. "'"" 
.,.,o,,.  
[ 

" 
:;: 'Otr.,mOD'>':>"tr
 ""'"'"' 
'"

g 
" 
Eoffman, 
341 U.S. 486-87); Hgga,,, 3?S U.S. ll-12 ll61t ;.ilibell. :!67 F.30. 552, 582 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (relying the law this Circuit). faccated tl'.at believes that lr. !!a."'" provided "qestionable testimony" his CctoPer 1996 depostion, .tates No. 5-133, slip op. 
ID.D.C- Dec.  2:l.  lg8).  and tlrat "little  (ID.:a..-,.g'5]  deposition  
1. 
"le-IDHO'!a.rina  Utgoff Braswell,  Ssq.  
Assistant  Utlited  States  Attorney  
Judiciary  center  Building  
555 Fourth  St:ceet,  N.W.  
"-" """  10-832  
Washington,  O.C.  20001  
John  Keeney,  Jr'