Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-05-03214/USCOURTS-caDC-05-03214-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roger S. Lathern
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued May 14, 2007 Decided June 12, 2007

No. 05-3214

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

v.

ROGER S. LATHERN,

APPELLANT

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 05cr00031-01)

Mary E. Davis, appointed by the court, argued the cause and

filed the briefs for appellant.

Michael T. Ambrosino, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the

cause for appellee. With him on the brief were Jeffrey A.

Taylor, U.S. Attorney, and Roy W. McLeese, III and Elizabeth

Trosman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys.

Before: SENTELLE, ROGERS and KAVANAUGH, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH.

USCA Case #05-3214 Document #1046408 Filed: 06/12/2007 Page 1 of 6
2

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: Roger Lathern appeals his

conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm on the ground

that the District Court improperly excluded testimony at trial.

We affirm.

I

Well after midnight on a chilly Washington, D.C., evening

in December 2004, Wendy Hardy and Linda Green were

chatting in the front seat of Hardy’s car when they noticed a

silver car ahead of them on the street. Moments later, the silver

car drove down the street and made a U-turn, so that it was

facing in the direction of Hardy’s car. The silver car parked

next to an alley; the alley was between Hardy’s car and the

silver car. As Hardy and Green watched, two men exited the

silver car toting firearms, plainly visible in the glow of a nearby

streetlight. The men went into the alley, where they disappeared

from sight. Hardy, a civilian employee of the local police

department, called 911, and two minutes later a police officer

arrived. As the officer and Hardy were speaking, a single

gunshot was heard in the alley. Hardy called 911 a second time

and requested additional police officers, who promptly came to

the scene. The officers established a perimeter around the alley

and quickly apprehended Roger Lathern and Rahmaan Ward,

who were both unarmed.

The police conducted a show-up of Lathern and Ward, and

Hardy positively identified both men. Hardy recognized

Lathern based on his face and his distinctive single-striped shirt.

The officers also canvassed the area. They discovered a 9-

millimeter pistol and a shotgun, which had one expended shell

casing. Neither Lathern nor Ward was wearing a coat when

apprehended. The officers searched the silver car, where they

found two winter coats.

USCA Case #05-3214 Document #1046408 Filed: 06/12/2007 Page 2 of 6
3

Lathern was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia for unlawful possession of a firearm by a

convicted felon. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). During his jury

trial, Hardy, Green, and a police officer who was at the scene

testified that the silver car had been parked near the alley or at

the “mouth of the alley.” Hardy also testified that she had

watched Lathern for between 45 seconds and a minute as he

walked from the car into the alley, and therefore was able to get

a good look at him.

The defense’s only witness was an investigator, Edward

Hainsworth, who apparently was to testify as an expert.

Hainsworth evidently had driven at some point to the scene of

the crime, parked near the alley, and estimated how long it

would take someone to walk to the alley from where the car was

parked. The obvious purpose of his testimony was to dispute

Hardy’s contention that she had observed the men for 45

seconds to a minute. Upon learning what Hainsworth intended

to say, however, the District Court excluded his testimony. The

court explained that without a witness showing Hainsworth

precisely where the silver car had been parked, Hainsworth

could not accurately assess how long it would take a person to

progress from the car to the alley. As the District Court put it,

“When [the witnesses] say it’s at the mouth of the alley, it could

be two feet from the alley. It could be five feet from the alley.

It could be one foot. We don’t know that. . . . [Y]ou are

suggesting to the jury that. . . the distance is ‘X,’ and in order for

us to know that that is an exact distance, we have got to know

that the car that he parked out there was at that exact location.”

Tr. of Aug. 22, 2005, Hr’g at 77, 79. The court further

explained: “[W]e don’t know [Hainsworth] parked at the same

location. And if you are not suggesting that, then it’s not

relevant. The only thing that’s relevant is how far the distance

was from the exact location where the car was parked that night.

USCA Case #05-3214 Document #1046408 Filed: 06/12/2007 Page 3 of 6
4

If somebody went out there and showed him exactly, then he

could say that. Absent that, he is speculating.” Id. at 77-78. 

The jury convicted Lathern, and the District Court

sentenced him to 97 months in prison along with three years of

supervised release. He filed a timely appeal in this Court.

II

Lathern challenges the District Court’s exclusion of

Hainsworth’s testimony; he argues that the exclusion violated

his Fifth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment

right “to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his

favor.” 

1. Before turning to the merits of Lathern’s argument, we

address Lathern’s characterization of his challenge as a

constitutional question (which in turn affects how harmless error

analysis is conducted, compareChapman v. California, 386 U.S.

18, 24 (1967), with Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750,

776 (1946)). Lathern relies on cases such as Washington v.

Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967), which held that an evidentiary rule

could be so burdensome on a defendant’s right to present a

defense as to violate the Constitution. See id. at 22-23. We

conclude, however, that Lathern has not presented a

constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court has clearly

instructed that “rules excluding evidence from criminal trials . . .

do not abridge an accused’s right to present a defense so long as

they are not ‘arbitrary’ or ‘disproportionate to the purposes they

are designed to serve.’” United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303,

308 (1998) (quoting Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 56 (1987)).

To be sure, a case could conceivably arise in which a district

court’s application of a rule of evidence is so erroneous and

unfair as to constitute a constitutional violation. But as the

Second Circuit recently cautioned, such cases are rare. See

USCA Case #05-3214 Document #1046408 Filed: 06/12/2007 Page 4 of 6
5

Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir. 2001). Only

when the error deprives a defendant of a fair trial does it amount

to a constitutional violation. See Chambers v. Mississippi, 410

U.S. 284, 302-03 (1973); see also United States v. Whitmore,

359 F.3d 609, 615-16 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“The district court . . .

has considerable discretion to place reasonable limits on a

criminal defendant’s presentation of evidence . . . .”). The error

Lathern alleges in this case does not rise to the level of a

constitutional violation. Lathern had a sufficient opportunity to

present his defense and cross-examine the key prosecution

witness. The District Court stated, moreover, that it would

permit Lathern to present testimony from an alternative witness

with first-hand knowledge regarding the distance between the

silver car and the alley.

2. We therefore evaluate the District Court’s exclusion of

Hainsworth’s testimony under the typical abuse of discretion

standard for evidentiary rulings. See Whitmore, 359 F.3d at 616.

We conclude that the District Court acted well within its

discretion in excluding Hainsworth’s testimony. 

Hainsworth apparently intended to cast doubt on Hardy’s

identification of Lathern by testifying how close the car was to

the alley, and then estimating the time it would take to walk into

the alley. But as the District Court pointed out, Hainsworth did

not know the actual distance of the car from the alley.

Therefore, the District Court certainly did not abuse its

discretion in excluding Hainsworth’s testimony. Cf. United

States v. Akers, 702 F.2d 1145, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 1983)

(upholding district court’s exclusion of photographic evidence

when the photographs did not accurately capture the view of the

witnesses at the time).

Even assuming the District Court erred in excluding

Hainsworth’s testimony, however, the error would be harmless.

USCA Case #05-3214 Document #1046408 Filed: 06/12/2007 Page 5 of 6
6

See Fed. R. Evid. 103(a); Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 776 (statutory

harmless error review standard: “substantial and injurious effect

or influence in determining the jury’s verdict”); United States v.

Coumaris, 399 F.3d 343, 349 (D.C. Cir. 2005); In re Sealed

Case, 352 F.3d 409, 411-12 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v.

Washington, 106 F.3d 983, 1000 (D.C. Cir. 1997). To begin

with, numerous witnesses testified about the approximate

distance between the car and the alley. And defense counsel

emphasized that evidence at closing argument to try to cast

doubt on whether Hardy really could have gotten a good look at

Lathern or seen him for 45 seconds to a minute, as Hardy had

testified. Hainsworth’s uninformed estimate of the distance

between the car and the mouth of the alley would have added

little to nothing to the evidentiary mix. In addition, the

prosecutor was prepared with significant impeachment material

against Hainsworth – his recent criminal conviction for forgery.

And, of course, there was persuasive inculpatory evidence aside

from Hardy’s identification, such as the fact that the police

immediately established a perimeter around the area, Lathern

and Ward were the two men they promptly apprehended, Green

(the woman with Hardy) also testified that the two men exiting

the silver car were carrying guns, two coats were found inside

the silver car from which the gunmen exited, and Lathern and

Ward were not wearing coats in 35-degree weather. In short,

there was overwhelming evidence that Lathern possessed a gun

that night and ditched it before being apprehended by the police.

Any error in excluding Hainsworth’s testimony was harmless.

* * *

We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

So ordered.

USCA Case #05-3214 Document #1046408 Filed: 06/12/2007 Page 6 of 6