 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Card v. United States6/28/2001
ould be "annulled."
After she testified, Stanford did receive a departure letter and was sentenced to only five years of probation. Appellants argue that the failure to disclose the post-testimony departure violated Giglio in light of the evidence that the government had pre-committed itself to assist the witness. However, Stanford was cross-examined extensively on the issue of the government's involvement in her pending sentencing, including the fact that her sentencing was continued until after her testimony in this case. The trial court found that the post-testimony departure letter given by the government represented nothing more than a strategic decision to forego action until after her testimony. In any event, we fail to find the necessary prejudice in any difference between an admitted perjurer and drug dealer who faces the possibility of a departure letter being sent on her behalf in light of her testimony, and an admitted perjurer and drug dealer who is guaranteed a departure letter prior to testifying. See Johnson, supra, 537 A.2d at 559-60; Hawthorne, supra, 504 A.2d at 592. Moreover, the mere fact that a departure letter was, in fact, sent after her testimony does not indicate that Stanford was lying, but rather supports her version of the agreement.
Likewise, appellants have failed to articulate any reversible prejudice from the other claims of failure to disclose required discovery material. Appellants used a dismissed motion for sanctions against the prosecutor to cross-examine Lewis Yancey regarding an alleged meeting with the prosecutor outside the presence of his attorney. Even though an audio tape of Yancey indicating that the gun used by Card may have belonged to someone else was not disclosed, appellants fail to address how the ownership of the murder weapon was material to any issue in the case. With regard to witness James Craille, although his prior inconsistent statements were not revealed, Craille nevertheless testified that he had previously made the false statements. Even without disclosure of alleged contact visits, appellants' counsel acknowledged that Craille "was substantially impeached" in cross-examination.
3. Inadequate Sanction
Finally, Edwards' claim that the trial court gave an inadequate sanction for a Jencks Act violation in relation to the government's failure to disclose the grand jury testimony of Detective Bradley fails. Sanctions for such actions are left to the discretion of the trial judge. See McGriff, supra, 705 A.2d at 287. We do not think the court's adverse-inference instruction to the jury informing them of the government's failure was an abuse or an otherwise inadequate sanction, especially where appellant was afforded the opportunity to effectively and extensively cross-examine the detective with the previously undisclosed testimony. See Woodall v. United States, 684 A.2d 1258, 1265 (D.C. 1996) (absent "gross negligence" or "significant prejudice" in failing to preserve Jencks material, court's decision not to strike testimony was not an abuse of discretion), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1130 (1997); Williams v. United States, 385 A.2d 760, 763 (D.C. 1978) (affirming trial court's refusal to strike testimony despite evidence that police officer deliberately destroyed Jencks material).
B. Napue Violation
"A prosecutor may not knowingly present false evidence or permit evidence, known to be false, to go uncorrected . . . . A defendant is accordingly entitled to a new trial if there is any reasonable likelihood that false testimony could have affected the judgment of the jury." Felder v. United States, 595 A.2d 974, 977 (D.C. 1991) (citing Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 271 (1959)) (other inte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 District of Columbia Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|