things for which he was later indicted. In contrast, Mandacina testified about gambling operations and was later indicted on charges arising from a murder. The only substantive link between the two is motive: the government argued that Mandacina retaliated against Strada for providing information to the government which led to Mandacina’s arrest and conviction on bookmaking charges. Although Mandacina testified as to details of Kansas City gambling operations not previously known by the government, those details were neither relevant to nor used in prosecuting Mandacina for Strada’s murder. Much of Mandacina’s testimony merely confirmed information previously obtained by the government through a court authorized wiretap. See United States v. Burke, 856 F.2d 1492, 1494 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 908, 109 S.Ct. 3222,
holding that the right of access to government information or sources of information within the governments control is not mandated by the first or fourteenth amendments holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect holding that wright does not forbid recourse to other evidence that confirms the presumptive unreliability of the hearsay holding that when government agents obtained information by means of a constitutional intrusion the proper remedy absent a showing of prejudice is exclusion of the information not dismissal of the indictment holding that immunized testimony which merely confirms information previously known to government agents from independent sources does not preclude prosecution