Opinion ID: 805640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecutor Misconduct

Text: Next, Gordon argues that the prosecution engaged in witness intimidation that caused several of his witnesses to refuse to testify. Gordon’s assertion of prosecutor misconduct centers on a statement made by a prosecutor and overheard by Helen Long, a former Commonwealth employee. Long testified on Gordon’s behalf at trial. During cross-examination, the Government asked if she and Gordon had an affair. Long denied a relationship with Gordon. On her way out of the courtroom as she passed by the prosecutor’s table, Long states she overheard an assistant United States attorney say to a colleague, “who is going to handle her perjury case?” Gordon argues this statement amounts to witness intimidation. Gordon first raised the issue of witness intimidation in his supplemental motion for new trial. Gordon attached two affidavits to his supplemental motion for new trial relating to alleged prosecutor misconduct. The first affidavit is from Jeffrey Manning, the subsequent owner of Commonwealth. Manning asserted the statement overheard by Long intimidated him such that he refused to testify for fear of exposure to criminal prosecution. In the second affidavit, Jerry Williams, the family member to whom Gordon transferred the Stone Dr. House in 2004, asserts he similarly refused to testify out of fear of prosecution, after he learned of the comment overheard by Long. 25 In a written memorandum and order denying Gordon’s motion for new trial, the district court explained that “government conduct which amounts to substantial interference with a witness’s free and unhampered determination to testify will violate due process.” Citing United States v. Foster, 128 F.3d 949, 953 (6th Cir. 1997). The district court, however, concluded that the remark relayed to Manning and Williams second-hand did not amount to substantial interference. Warning a witness of the consequences of perjury does not amount to interference with the right to testify. United States v. Pierce, 62 F.3d 818, 832 (6th Cir. 1995). Finally, the affidavits do not amount to newly discovered evidence, as the witnesses refused to testify during the trial and Gordon would have known of their reasons for refusing through the exercise of due diligence. As the government rightly points out, Gordon’s request for a new trial on the basis of witness intimidation was untimely.