Opinion ID: 778069
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Morgan's Cross Examination and Re-Direct

Text: 74 Napue involved a witness who had falsely testified that he had been promised no consideration for his testimony. Napue, 360 U.S. at 267, 79 S.Ct. 1173. The witness testified falsely that a prosecutor had not promised to recommend a reduction of his already imposed sentence. Id. at 266, 79 S.Ct. 1173. 75 The case at bar presents similar facts. While we cannot determine on the record before us precise details of Morgan's plea or the underlying crimes to which he pled, the respondent concedes that an agreement was made and, of course, that it knew of the agreement during the second trial. On cross examination, Morgan denied any deal with the State: 76 Q: And before you testified, your attorney and Mr. Landa [the prosecutor in the first trial] worked out a deal; is that correct? 77 A: No, that is not correct. 78 Only when confronted with his previous testimony did Morgan concede the plea's existence, but still he maintained it wasn't no deal, only what they offered me. That tepid admission tended more to preclude than to suggest a quid pro quo exchange of testimony for leniency. Reasonable jurors would have had to make a considerable inferential leap to conclude from that exchange that Morgan's testimony was the subject of a bargain with the State. We think it far more likely that jurors would have concluded that Jenkins's counsel tried but failed to establish that a deal had been made. The respondent's suggestion on appeal that Jenkins's counsel effectively drew forth the plea agreement's existence is without support. 79 ADA Lendino did nothing to correct this false impression. To the contrary, she further misled the jury. During cross-examination, she sought to foreclose defense counsel's inquiry into the plea agreement by objecting on the ground that his questions about it had already been asked and answered. On redirect examination, her questions, while eliciting technically accurate testimony, were phrased so as to reenforce the false impression that no deal had been made: 80 Q: David, have I ever met with you before today? 81 A: No. 82 Q: Did you make any deals with me? 83 A: No. 84 That testimony was probably true but surely misleading. ADA Lendino did not follow up by eliciting testimony that although Morgan had made no deal with her, he had indeed reached one with another member of the District Attorney's office. As the district court correctly observed, the jury was left with the mistaken impression that Mr. Morgan had no cooperation agreement with the State.... Jenkins, No. 98-CV-277, op. at 28.