A unique legal situation that arose locally in federal court that involves some of the Fifth Amendment issues discussed above by olivant and Turnbull.

Thae facts: Schuylkill Products began as a company in Pottsville, PA after WWII by Joseph Nagle, who manufactured and installed building materials with prestressed concrete. The business boomed and expanded. He died in 1980 and his son, Nagle II took over until his death in 2004 whereupon his son,Nagle III and son-in-law, Fink, battled over control of the company. They agreed to share control. In 2007 federal indictments were issued against a dozen former and present officers of the company dating back to 1992. It was determined that the co. engaged in massive fraud in securing hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts by fraudulently representing itself as a minority contractor. They conspired with a Connecticut company (mostly Filipino), and used that company name when performing work. They kicked back millions to the sham co. Most of the defendants pled guilty. Fink and Nagle III were charged last, and Fink entered a guilty plea without agreeing to cooperate with authorities and is awaiting sentencing. Nagle III maintained that he had no involvement in the schemes, which largely predated his involvement with the company, and is the only defendant awaiting trial.

The issue: In his defense he alleges that a journal and testimony of Fink would exculpate him. Fink is refusing to testify for him, citing his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Nagle III has taken the extraordinary step of requesting the judge to grant use immunity to Fink to compel his testimony and the introduction of his journal into evidence. Normally the prosecution determines if immunity should be granted. The judge, named Rambo, granted the request over objections of Fink and the prosecution. Rambo noted that the situation presents a conflict between Nagle III's Sixth Amendment Right to a fair trial and Fink's Fifth Amendment rights, and therefore determined that granting Fink immunity is necessary to guarantee a fair trial for Nagle III.

The prosecution has appealed and the novel issue will be determined by the Third Circuit. Stay tuned.