United States v. Young (1996)

Keith Young and Edelmiro Tamez (defendants), prosecuted for narcotics distribution based partly on government witness John Drake's testimony, sought to have witness David Delfs granted use immunity to testify that Drake had suggested, at a third party's house, that he would falsely accuse someone (possibly Young) of being his drug supplier; on cross-examination, Drake denied ever visiting that house during the relevant timeframe. When the government refused to grant Delfs immunity, he did not testify, and after conviction, Young and Tamez appealed, arguing the court should have compelled the immunity grant; the government countered that Delfs's testimony would have been inadmissible anyway since Drake never had a chance to explain the alleged prior inconsistent statement.