Hearsay, Conspiracy, Sentencing.
No Double Jeopardy, as although the offenses were of the same nature and occurred at the same place, the players and the overt acts differed.
No prosecutorial vindictiveness, as there was no evidence in the record of malice, and the indictment was returned.
Although trial court did not explicitly find the person in question to be a co-conspirator, a preponderance of evidence to that effect allows the testimony to survive plain error review under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.
Testimony by deft's husband offered to prove state of mind of deft during a business meeting properly excluded under hearsay, as it worked to impeach earlier testimony as to the content of the meeting.
Prosecutors' sidebar followed by court's in camera hearing and warning to witness on self-incrimination was not witness intimidation by prosc.
No error in denial of grant of immunity to defense witness, as there was no showing as to likely effect on the case.
No error in court's refusal to order the witness to invoke 5A on stand, or bar prosecution cross.
Sentencing - once a factor is proven at trial, burden shifts to deft to specifically rebut - a general indictment of the testimony doesn't suffice.
No error in sentencing bump for leadership, as deft was part owner and sole signatory of fraudulent organization.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/15a0298p-06.pdf
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.