728 F.2d 930 (1984)
At defendant's jury trial, the vice president of a bank defendant had allegedly robbed testified that the bank was federally insured. Plaintiff government revoked immunity given to accomplice, and the court refused to compel the government to extend immunity to accomplice.
- The district court held an in camera conference with the prosecutor in order to question the prosecutor about the delay in bringing an indictment against accomplice.
- Defendant's conviction for robbery was affirmed and his motion to remand was denied. Uncontroverted testimony indicated that the bank was federally insured at the time of the robbery.
- It was within the prosecutor's discretion to determine that accomplice had broken their agreement and to revoke his immunity as a consequence.
- Defendant's motion to gain access to the transcript of an in camera proceeding was denied.
- A discussion outside the presence of the defense counsel was necessary to disclose the progress of the government's investigation of accomplice.
- The prosecutor's rebuttal comments were improper, but constituted harmless error.
Court affirmed defendant's convictions and denied defendant's motions because the prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank was federally insured, defendant was not denied his right to due process or his right to compulsory process, and the prosecutor's improper rebuttal argument was harmless error.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.