Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-93-03161/USCOURTS-caDC-93-03161-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Small
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

-

Filed April 12, 1996

No. 93-3161

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAMES SMALL,

APPELLANT

-

(Criminal Action No. 93-0171-01)

-

Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of appellee's motion to amend opinion, filed March 15, 1996, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer 

Clerk

A separate statement filed by Chief Judge EDWARDS concurring in the denial of the motion

is attached.

EDWARDS, Chief Judge: The Government, in its motion seeking amendment of our opinion

USCA Case #93-3161 Document #193777 Filed: 04/12/1996 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

in United States v. Small, 74 F.3d 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1996), points to three instances where the court

criticizes the conduct of the prosecutor during the trial, and argues that these criticisms unfairly

suggest that the prosecutor acted in bad faith. Although the court today denies the motion to amend,

I write because I wish to emphasize that there is nothing in the court's opinion accusing the

prosecutor of bad faith. Indeed, bad faith was not in any respect the issue before the court; the

question concerned whether the prosecutor's actions denied appellant his right to a fair trial. As the

court's opinion notes, under Gaither v. United States, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (D.C. Cir. 1969), the

prosecutor's good faith was irrelevant. 74 F.3d at 1280.

To the extent that the Government reads a sense of dismay on the court's part regarding the

prosecutor's conduct, such a tone does not suggest bad faith, but rather expresses our view that it is

unhelpful to have cases cut so close to the line of questionable practices. Obviously, the appellate

process is smoother for all concerned if the trial lawyers are especially careful not to stray into

questionable territory that might lead to a problem on appeal. Nevertheless, just as we do not malign

defense attorneys when we state that they have not preserved an issue for appeal, so too our

comments in this case do not malign the integrity of the prosecutor.

As to the specific objections raised by the Government, it is understandable that the

prosecutor may view as unduly harsh the court's statement expressing "doubt about whether the

prosecutor ever intended to introduce the previewed evidence" regarding the Amtrak reservation

form. Id. at 1283. The Government points to transcript pages indicating that the prosecutor believed

she could introduce the Amtrak form as non-hearsay. However, this material is unresponsive to the

court's concerns. What is troubling to the court is the prosecutor's seeming unpreparedness to meet

obvious defense objections; it is this that raises the doubt about whether the prosecutor ever intended

to introduce the form. The District Court allowed the prosecutor to introduce background

information, including a description of the type of information on the form, through the inspector's

testimony. Hence, it was virtually inevitable that the prosecutor's subsequent assertion that she

sought to introduce the formfor non-hearsay purposes would be met by defense objections. The voir

dire of the investigator shows that he had no personal knowledge about the information in the form.

USCA Case #93-3161 Document #193777 Filed: 04/12/1996 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Moreover, the Government's motion does not contest that the prosecutor was unprepared to

introduce the form as a business record. Surely in the face of this record, it is hardly surprising that

the court voiced some concerns, albeit no accusation of bad faith.

TheGovernment also arguesthat the prosecutor intended to introduce evidence regarding Mr.

Small's "confessional" statement, but somehow forgot to do so. However, the court's opinion on this

point states only that the prosecutor "did not attempt to introduce that evidence" during the trial. Id.

Because there is no question that the court's statement is factually correct (and the Government

concedesthat the prosecutor neglected to introduce the evidence in question), the court's opinion on

this point needs no amendment. There is no basis to interpret the court's decision as implying that

the prosecutor acted in bad faith by referring to the evidence in her opening statement to the jury.

Finally, I am willing to assume that the District Court was less than clear in its directives

regarding the permissible scope ofthe prosecution's opening statement and did not rule that all profile

evidence wasto be excluded. Therefore, I do not believe the court's opinion properly can be read to

imply that the prosecutor purposely disobeyed an explicit instruction from the bench.

The members of this court take very seriously their obligation to address cases based on the

records before us. In doing this, we have occasion to provide guidance to district court judges,

members offederal agencies, and attorneys who have helped to create the recordsthat are the subject

of our review. We even have occasion to admonish (where we feel it is due)not to humiliate or

defame, but to urge counsel to adhere to practices that will ensure that justice is done. Our

admonishments in this case were made in that spirit, not as ad hominem attacks designed to impugn

the integrity of the trial prosecutor in this case.

USCA Case #93-3161 Document #193777 Filed: 04/12/1996 Page 3 of 3