to the prohibition on hearsay that would make the statement admissible. “The court need not ... engage in an act of futility by authorizing depositions that clearly will be inadmissible at trial.” Drogoul, 1 F.3d at 1555. The district court also expressed concern about Babakhani’s right against self-incrimination. Babakhani was a codefendant who did not have legal counsel, and the district court could not “grant immunity to a defense witness merely because that witness possesses ... exculpatory information.” Cuthel, 903 F.2d at 1384 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). And the district court found that it would be unjust to allow Babakhani, a “fugitive from justice,” to testify for Alexander. See, e.g., United States v. Hemandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560, 1569 (9th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court did not abuse its
recognizing that the right to be present can be waived in noncapital felony federal cases recognizing that there can be bailment of money holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case recognizing that it can be unjust to allow a fugitive to participate via deposition