TESTIMONY NOT CUMULATIVE BECAUSE PROBATIVE OF ULTIMATE ISSUE

Gay v. United States, No. 08-CM-916.  Decided February 3, 2011.


Trial court committed reversible error when it excluded unnamed witness testimony.  The witness would have testified that he was the defendant in a pending assault case involving the same victim and similar facts as this case.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals disagreed with trial court's ruling that the evidence was cumulative and held it was a "reversible abuse of discretion."  The court held that trial court's exclusion of the witness testimony involved the central issue at trial, i.e., determining whether the appellant or complainant was the initial aggressor.  Because the excluded testimony would have been probative, the trial court decision was erroneous.  

THIRD-PARTY PERPETRATOR DEFENSE REJECTED

Melendez v. United States, No. 08-CF-244.  Decided March 3, 2011.


A third-party perpetrator defense must include a sufficient proffer that the third-party had the "practical opportunity" to commit the offense.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected the defense because the appellant failed to introduce evidence that the third-party had the opportunity to commit murder in this case.  The appellant introduced evidence that the third-party had a "chance meeting" with the murder victim at a gas station on the day of the crime.  However, the court did not find this to be sufficient to demonstrate that the third-party had the opportunity to commit murder, and therefore, rejected the third-party perpetrator defense during the government's case in chief.


The court also considered whether a statement qualified as an excited utterance when it was made at least one hour and forty-five minutes after witnessing a murder.  The court concluded that a four-year-old's out of court statement was admissible as an excited utterance because it was made without "the impetus of reflection."  The evidence showed that the four-year-old witnessed a murder, was driven from Washington, DC to Baltimore in silence by the appellant, the alleged murderer, and made the out of court statement to the first person he trusted.  Under these circumstances, the court held that the statement qualified as an excited utterance.  

COURT REJECTS "CONTEXTUAL IMPLICATION" DOCTRINE

Matthews v. United States, No. 08-CF-1467.  Decided February 24, 2011.


A co-defendant's out of court statement was admissible against a co-defendant because it did not implicate the latter.  The District of Columbia Court of Appeals cited Richardson v. United States, 481 U.S. 200 (1987), and "rejected the 'contextual implication' doctrine" in response to the appellant's contention that the out of court statement implied his guilt.  The statement did not include the appellant's name nor was any reference made.  Therefore, the court held that the statement was properly admitted.

STRUCTURAL ERROR IS NOT AUTOMATIC PLAIN ERROR

Barrows v. United States, No. 08-CM-740.  Decided February 24, 2011.


In a case of first impression to decide whether structural error will "invariably" meet the fourth prong of the plain error test, i.e., a decision that "seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation . . . of judicial proceedings," the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's erroneous decision to close a courtroom during voir dire.  The court found that the trial court's brief closure of the courtroom was not plain error and rejected the appeal.  

DEFENSE CANNOT RELY ON PROSECUTOR OPENING STATEMENT

Evans v. United States,  No. 07-CF-1036.  Decided January 20, 2011.


The District of Columbia Court Appeals distinguished a prosecutor's opening statement from pre-trial statements because the latter has a greater impact on defense strategy and stressed that opening statements are only a "roadmap."  In this case, the defense argued that the prosecutor's opening statement regarding the defendant's false exculpatory statement induced the defense to promise the jury in its opening that it would present specific exculpatory evidence.  However, the court found no "substantial prejudice" and the defense was not "entitled to rely" on a prosecutor's opening statement as a basis to promise evidence during the defense presentation of evidence.

HELLER DECISION APPLIED RETROACTIVELY TO GUILTY PLEA

Magnus v. United States, Nos. 09-CO-1312 & 10-CO-245.  Decided January 6, 2011.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently applied the Heller decision, finding D.C. handgun ban in a private home violates the Second Amendment, retroactively to a guilty plea because the plea was not made intelligently.  The Court held that a guilty plea is invalid when a “subsequent court ruling” makes the charged offense “constitutionally protected.”   

FAILURE TO DISCLOSE METRO BUS VIDEO NOT A DISCOVERY VIOLATION

Myers v. United States, No. 08-CM-1560.  Decided February 24, 2011

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently affirmed a conviction despite the government’s failure to disclose a video taken on a Metro bus showing an alleged assault.  The Court decided that the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority was not part of the “prosecution” team although they possessed a video of an alleged assault aboard a Metro bus and that WMATA acted in a proprietary manner.  The video taping was not a governmental function; therefore, the Court found no discovery violation.