Opinion ID: 1946452
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The State's Efforts to Locate the Witness

Text: The defendant also contends that the state's search for the witness was not in good faith because it had notice of Bogan's reluctance to testify and therefore had an affirmative duty to prevent him for disappearing and failed to make reasonable efforts to prevent his disappearance in the first place. The defendant's reliance on United States v. Mann, 590 F.2d 361 (1st Cir.1978) as support for this argument is misplaced. In Mann, after the witness testified under oath at a deposition and indicated an unwillingness to testify, the prosecution returned her passport as well as a plane ticket to Australia. The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that the trial judge erred in declaring the witness unavailable because the government had failed to adequately ensure the witness's presence at trial and would have made a more vigorous effort if it did not have the benefit of her prior recorded testimony. Id. at 367-68. In this case, the state not only sought immunity for the witness, but also the prosecutor repeatedly asked the trial justice to order that the subpoena remain in force and to remind the witness that he was not free to leave until he was excused. Thus, we do not discern bad faith on the part of the prosecution, nor are we persuaded that the search efforts were inadequate. We recognize that a search is not judged by its results, but rather by its nature since [o]ne, in hindsight, may always think of other things. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 75, 100 S.Ct. 2531. Here, the witness was a local resident who had appeared in Court on prior occasions and freely testified. In fact, the trial justice found that during the first trial, after the witness was compelled to appear, Bogan exhibited no hesitancy whatsoever in his performance before the jury at that time. Although Bogan suggested that he might flee, the trial justice ordered him to remain in the courthouse until he was given permission to leave. Moreover, the record amply demonstrates that after the trial justice issued a body attachment, the state conducted a thorough search for Bogan's whereabouts. We decline to hold that the state's efforts were not in good faith simply because Bogan disappeared in the first place. The fact that the means utilized were unsuccessful does not mean that the government's efforts were not made in good faith. United States v. Eufracio-Torres, 890 F.2d 266, 270 (10th Cir.1989). We therefore reject this argument.