See United States v. Gonzales, 164 F.3d 1285, 1292 (10th Cir. 1999) ("Although the defense had no right to interview the witness under Rule 16, it had a right to be free from prosecution interference with a witness' freedom of choice about whether to talk to the defense."); United States v. Carrigan, 804 F.2d 599, 603 (10th Cir. 1986) (recognizing that "both sides have the right to interview witnesses before trial" and the prosecution should "not discourage or obstruct communications between prospective witnesses and defense counsel"); United States v. Pinto, 755 F.2d 150, 152 (10th Cir. 1985) ("[T]he prosecution may not interfere with the free choice of a witness to speak with the defense absent justification by the clearest and most compelling considerations." (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Fred, No. CR 05-801 JB, 2006 WL 4079619, at *4 (D.N.M. Dec. 4, 2006) (unpublished) ("[T]he prosecutor must not obstruct communications between witnesses and defense counsel . . . .").

See United States v. Serrano, 406 F.3d at 1216 ("The prosecutor did not act in bad faith when he notified the court that the witnesses' testimony could subject them to prosecution for misprision of felony or possession of an unregistered illegal firearm."). But see United States v. Fred, No. CR 05-0801, 2006 WL 4079619, at *4 (D.N.M. December 4, 2006)(Browning, J.)("[T]he prosecutor must not obstruct communications between witnesses and defense counsel -- and 'it is unprofessional conduct for the prosecutor to advise a prospective witness to decline to give the defense information that person has a right to give.' " (quoting United States v. Carrigan, 804 F.2d 599, 603 (10th Cir. 1986))).