Opinion ID: 2424577
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Prosecutorial Misconduct and Witness Coaching

Text: The applicant next contends that Mary rehearsed her testimony with prosecutors prior to trial, a practice that he contends amounted to perjury and prosecutorial misconduct. [3] However, preparing a witness to testify at trial is an acceptable practice that often is used by both parties. Even assuming, arguendo, that Mary's testimony was practiced with the state's attorneys, such a circumstance would not have amounted to prosecutorial misconduct unless she was coached to testify untruthfully. The fact that she rehearsed her testimony is, of course, fair game on cross-examination. The trial justice evaluated Mary's competency to testify at trial, and found that she understood the difference between the truth and a lie and that it was very important to tell the truth. Furthermore, as noted, when passing upon applicant's motion for a new trial, the trial justice accepted as truthful all of Mary's testimony. To succeed on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the applicant must establish that the wrongdoing was of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial. State v. Mastracchio, 612 A.2d 698, 703 (R.I. 1992) (quoting Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 765, 107 S.Ct. 3102, 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987)). Because there was not a scintilla of evidence presented that the witness was coached or that the state engaged in misconduct, and mindful that the trial justice found the witness's testimony credible, we reject the applicant's contention. The applicant has not met the high burden of proving either prosecutorial misconduct or perjury, and thus his allegation necessarily must fail. [4]