Opinion ID: 1476684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cross-examination of Gloria Dunn

Text: Defendant next argues that counsel's cross-examination of Gloria Dunn failed to confront Dunn with his claim that Dunn was the trigger-person. Harris also argues that counsel failed to use effective impeachment material at their disposal in respect of inconsistencies among Dunn's multiple descriptions of the relevant events. For example, defendant contends that Dunn once reported that he kept his gun in his waistband the entire time, but on another occasion, she stated that defendant placed the gun on the car.
As the State argues in its counter to this allegation of ineffective assistance, review of Dunn's testimony and of Scully's guilt-phase summation reveals the weakness of defendant's claim. Scully launched a cross-examination attack on Dunn's credibility and the reliability of her testimony. He had Dunn repeat that she testified to and reported many critical facts that she never told the police in her initial statements. Most notably, she did not mention until September 1994 that a rape had occurred. She also did not repeat Harris's alleged stated intention to kill a white victim, but to spare a black victim, until January 1996. Scully's examination strongly suggested that Dunn was motivated to conjure those and other facts in order to gain a favorable plea bargain with the prosecution. Despite not helping Huggins when she had opportunities to do so, Dunn testified that she cared about Kristin. Scully's cross-examination mocked the suggestion that she was testifying for any such reason. Moreover, Scully's cross-examination attempted to expose inconsistencies throughout Dunn's evolving narrative about December 17, 1992. For example, he had Dunn tell the jury that she had lied about certain details when she finally did tell police of the rape. (She first reported falsely that she was inside the car at the time). She admitted that she signed her February 1993 statement even though it contained false information about the location of a passerby, with a baby, who heard Huggins banging from inside the trunk. And, Scully's questioning emphasized that one of Dunn's professed reasons for not letting Huggins out of the trunk when Harris was temporarily out of sight, was because the trunk was jammed, despite Harris's subsequent ability to open it to get Huggins out. Scully also succeeded in making Dunn waver on whether she ever abandoned her robbery intentions. At one point, she testified that she changed her mind on seeing Harris's gun, but later admitted that she was still in on the robbery even after Huggins was forced into the trunk. Despite saying she still planned to commit the robbery, she nonetheless depicted herself as Harris's second kidnapping victim. Scully also attacked Dunn's character. He had her repeat that she was a drug dealer, that she intended to commit robbery in order to buy more drugs to resell, that she had been convicted of welfare fraud, and that she had minor children who did not live with her, but to whom she owed court-ordered support. Even the cold trial transcript reveals how difficult a person Dunn could be. When Scully asked her to look at a prior police statement, she responded, No, I don't want to read it. Dunn also demanded that Scully not say that they went  back to Cortlandt Street to get shovels because she had never been to Cortlandt Street, and she instructed Scully at one juncture to [g]et to the point, which drew comment from the trial court. Thus, in his summation, Scully was able to ask the jurors to consider whether anybody in the world tells Gloria Dunn what to do or what not to do. Finally, despite defendant's claim that counsel did not accuse Dunn of being the trigger-person, Scully did make that suggestion through a line of questioning, at the end of which, Scully asked Dunn, You didn't kill anybody, right? Q: And you were interested in them finding KristinKristin, because this was bothering you so bad over these three months thatbut you weren't interested in any reward, were you? A: I don't want no money, no, I just wanted her to get out of the ground. Q: Mr. Zarling said to you at the conclusion of your direct testimony, you entered into an agreement with the Prosecutor's Office to tell  to tell the truth, correct? A: It's only right that I tell the truth. No. I didn't enter into an agreement through anything. I'm just here to tell the truth what happened. Q: So if you never had been involved in this plea agreement, you'd still be here telling us the truth today? A: Of course I would tell the truth. Q: And A: I'm in jail. I didn't do anything to hurt her. Why wouldn't I tell the truth? The person who did it ain't going to tell. Because he told me he ain't going to talk. He told me, I'll tell them people all nothing. Q: Everything that you've told us here today is the truth, because you were concerned about Kristin and you wanted the truth to be known, correct? A: Course, it's the truth. Why wouldn't I be concerned about somebody getting killed in front of my face? I don't have the heart to shoot nobody. I never killed nobody before. I never experienced nothing like I experienced ever before. Why wouldn't I? Q: You didn't kill anybody, right? A: I never killed nobody. Q: You're here today to help Kristin, not to help A: I'm here today to tell the truth. I'll leave it like that. Scully: Nothing further. Scully's questions were laden with sarcasm. Instead of asking her point blank if she killed Huggins, as defendant now argues legally was required, Scully chose to confront Dunn in a different manner. His approach was not objectively unreasonable. Further, Scully argued in summation that perhaps Dunn was the killer, and that she suspiciously had protested too much to the police suggestion that she pulled the trigger. Scully's theme in summation was to show that the only evidence of a rape and of Harris being the triggerman came from Dunn, and that (i) Dunn was a liar and (ii) none of the other evidence corroborated her testimony. Counsel recounted her inconsistencies, failure to report crucial details, her reason to please the prosecution, and her involvement with drugs. We previously found that defense counsel attacked Dunn's credibility ... thoroughly and undermined [it] at almost every stage of the guilt-phase trial. Harris I, supra, 156 N.J. at 180, 716 A. 2d 458. We reiterate here what we observed in our previous decisions: Defendant's impeachment of Gloria Dunn was extensive. Id. at 182, 716 A. 2d 458.
The accusations of deficiency in trial counsel's cross-examination of Dunn are negligible in light of Scully's effective attacks on Dunn's credibility. Not pressing Dunn on other minor inconsistenciessuch as exactly where defendant's gun and pants were positioned during the rapedoes not push Scully's cross-examination performance below an objective standard of reasonableness. Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052.