telephone on October 10, an INS official notified the defense attorney that the customary procedure was for the United States Attorney to request a Public Interest Parole.


14
In court on October 10, the attorneys again conferred with the judge on the subject of the absent witness.  The judge, appearing distinctly annoyed, ordered the United States Attorney "to request a Special Public Interest Parole for Mr. Jines Diaz and ... to assist in bringing this material witness to this country to testify at trial."


15
The United States Attorney filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court's order, claiming that she had not been notified of the existence of the witness until two days before the trial began.  She stated further that Fed.R.Crim.P., Rule 17(e)(2) set forth the proper procedurefor assuring the presence of a witness abroad.2


16
The controversy soon terminated, albeit without resolution.  On October 12, Filippi's attorney agreed to proceed at trial without Jines-Diaz rather than subject his client to a six week delay in proceedings.  The trial continued, resulting in the convictions appealed from herein.

II. COMPULSORY PROCESS

17
The essence of Filippi's appeal is that the actions of the United States Attorney and the INS combined to deny him compulsory process as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and that his due process right under the Fifth Amendment was also thereby violated.  We agree that the prosecutor here did not act in accordance with the obligations imposed on her as an agent of justice.  See, e.g., United States v. Doe, 860 F.2d 488, 494