Opinion ID: 409249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Carson's Alleged Knife

Text: 54 Carson also objects to the district court's decision to admit into evidence a knife as similar to a knife allegedly found on Carson's person when he was arrested. Deputy Constable Jack Thomas testified that he confiscated a knife from Carson at Carson's arrest. Thomas also stated that the knife was visible as a bulge in Carson's pants pocket before the arrest was made. Carson fully denied having a knife in his possession during the arrest, and specifically denied that the knife identified by Thomas belonged to him. 55 The knife was relevant to two issues in the case. First, Carson charged that the deputy constables had arrested him without probable cause. The constables asserted that Carson was seen with a tool in his hand that they believed was used to open locked car doors, which tool later turned out to be the knife. Carson's possession of the knife thus had relevance to the officers' probable cause to arrest Carson for supposedly breaking into a car on the precinct station parking lot. Second, Carson contended that the officers used excessive force in subduing him after the arrest. That a knife was seen on Carson's person during the arrest had relevance to the amount of force the constables could reasonably employ. 56 While the court purported to admit the knife in evidence as a similar knife, the transcript reveals that it was by no means made clear to the jury that the knife as admitted had absolutely no connection with the knife alleged to be in Carson's possession except that it was a look-alike. The careful review of the transcript is important on this point. Assistant Chief Deputy Thomas is testifying: 57 Q. Officer Thomas, I will show you what has been marked as Defendants' Exhibit Number 2, and I will ask you if you have ever seen that knife before? 58 A. Yes. 59 Q. Tell the members of the Jury, if you would, where you have seen that knife. 60 A. It was protruding through the right pants leg of Arthur Wayne Carson. 61 Q. You say the right pants leg? 62 A. Yes. 63 Q. Now, what happened to that knife, if you know, Officer Thomas, after it was taken off of Mr. Carson's person on February the 10th? 64 A. It was given to me. 65 Q. And what, if anything, did you do with that? 66 A. I put it in the property room. 67 Q. Now, when you say property room explain to the Jury exactly what you mean by that. 68 A. This is a room that we-it's a locked room. There's only my boss and one secretary has a key to this. It's a room where we store weapons. No one else has access except those two. 69 Q. Do you put all of a prisoner's personal property into that particular property room? 70 A. No. 71 Q. If you would, explain if there's a difference in your putting some there and taking some somewhere else; what that procedure is. 72 A. In the normal case this knife would have been taken to the County Jail and placed with his property at the book-in section. But on this particular instance there was another charge of burglary of a vehicle that was filed, and this would be used in evidence. Had Mr. Carson been released on bond, the knife would have gone with him and we wouldn't have had it for evidence if we had a case of burglary of a vehicle. And that was the reason it was retained in our office. 73 Q. Was it retained as physical evidence in a case, as opposed to just the suspect's personal property that would be later released to him? 74 A. That's correct. 75 After the defendants offered the knife in evidence, Carson's attorney, Mr. Cunningham, took Officer Thomas on voir dire: 76 Q. Mr. Thomas, are you saying that you can identify Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 as being the knife, you recognize this knife, or you just recognize it because Ms. Lagarde (defendants' attorney) showed you a knife that came out of that folder up there? 77 A. No, sir. 78 Q. You cannot identify this- 79 A. Yes, I can. 80 Q. You can tell this knife from another Old Timer? 81 A. I remember it being brown and white, and the trade name or brand name was Old Timer. 82 Q. Can you identify this as the knife taken from the-from Arthur Wayne Carson that day? 83 A. It was that type knife. 84 Q. Is that all you're able to say, it was this type knife? 85 A. That's the knife. 86 Q. Okay. Can you say it was this knife? If I showed you another Old Timer you could tell me it was this knife as opposed to another Old Timer? 87 A. If that's the knife that was here on the other hearing. 88 Q. That's the only way- 89 A. Yes, sir. 90 Q. -isn't it, Mr. Thomas? 91 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Your Honor, we'll object to the introduction of Defendants' Exhibit 2 if he can't identify it. There's no chain of custody been established. 92 THE COURT: Well, I'll admit it for the purpose of showing that it was a similar knife. 93 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, Your Honor, for the record, we'll object to the introduction of a similar type knife because it's irrelevant. 94 THE COURT: I'll overrule. 95 Later, the defendants undertook to introduce in evidence an envelope in which the knife purportedly had been kept. The transcript reads: 96 Q. I'll show you what has been marked for purposes of identification as Defendants' Exhibit 3, and ask you if you recognize that document? 97 A. Yes, I do. 98 Q. And what is that, please? 99 A. It's a package that I put the knife in before it was placed in the property room. 100 Q. And where have you seen that before? 101 A. At the other hearing. 102 Q. Did you see it on February the 10th of 1978? 103 A. Yes. 104 Q. Did you have occasion to prepare that yourself or have someone under your supervision prepare that? 105 A. Had a secretary, Coleen Reed, type it up. 106 Q. After that was typed up what was done with that? 107 A. She placed it in our secure property room. 108 Q. Was there any other item placed in this envelope before it was placed in the property room? 109 A. No. 110 Q. What about the knife? 111 A. Just the knife, is all that was placed in it. 112 Q. And did it remain there? 113 MR. LOEWINSOHN (plaintiff's co-counsel): I'm sorry, I can't hear back here. Excuse me. 114 THE COURT: Yes. He said just the knife was placed in it. 115 Q. Mr. Thomas, after February 10th of 1978 did you have occasion at some point in time to bring Defendants' Exhibits Number 2 and 3 somewhere? 116 A. To the last hearing. 117 MS. LAGARDE: We would offer into evidence Defendants' Exhibit Number 3. 118 MR. CUNNINGHAM: We'll object to Defendants' Exhibit Number 3, Your Honor, insofar as it's hearsay, and it does not prove the facts reflected on the exhibit itself. 119 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. I'll admit 3. 120 Thus the envelope in which the knife, admitted solely as a similar knife, was purportedly kept was admitted in evidence. Counsel for Carson on cross-examination then asked Officer Thomas: 121 Q. Mr. Thomas, can you sit here and swear that the knife that sits before you is the knife that was placed in Defendants' Exhibit 3? 122 A. Yes. 123 Q. You can testify that just because Ms. Lagarde handed that to you. You couldn't tell that Old Timer from any Old Timer, could you? 124 A. If the knife's been in the Court's possession. 125 Q. Do you know where the knife's been? 126 A. It's been left with the Court. 127 Q. Do you know that of your own personal knowledge? 128 A. Yes. 129 Q. You do? 130 A. I was advised of that. 131 Q. Do you know that of your own personal knowledge? 132 THE COURT: No, he doesn't. 133 MR. CUNNINGHAM: Your Honor, on the basis of them still being unable to establish a chain of custody, we still object to Defendants' Exhibit Number 3, or the introduction of it. 134 THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection. 135 This record reveals a far greater authentication of the knife than should have been the effect of the court's limited admission of the knife solely because it was similar. After the knife was admitted as similar, Thomas was allowed to testify that it was the knife which had been in police custody in the exhibit 3 envelope throughout, and he was permitted on the basis solely of unattributed hearsay to authenticate the exhibit 3 envelope as having been in police custody throughout the entire alleged custodial period and as having contained the exhibit 2 knife. 136 Concededly, this knife could have been admitted in evidence as illustrative or demonstrative evidence. Trial court's have great discretion in this area. Gaspard v. Diamond M Drilling Co., 593 F.2d 605, 607 (5th Cir. 1979); Wright v. Redman Mobile Homes, Inc., 541 F.2d 1096, 1097 (5th Cir. 1976). Illustrative evidence is admitted solely to help the witness explain his or her testimony. Illustrative evidence has no probative force beyond that which is lent to it by the credibility of the witness whose testimony it is used to explain. 22 Wright & Graham, Fed.Prac. & Pro. § 5174 p. 134 (1978). 137 Because it is tangible, however, illustrative evidence tends to have a strong effect in bolstering the credibility of the witness who identifies the illustrative exhibit. In the words of one treatise, 138 Real proof often has an enormous apparent probative value because the lay trier may lose sight of the fact that its connection to a party may depend upon the credibility of an authenticating witness. Particularly since such proof is often taken into the jury room it continues to speak long after the witnesses have departed. Even the most unbelievable statements tend to take on an air of verity when they are connected to a tangible object. 139 See 5 Weinstein & Burger, Weinstein's Evidence, P 901(a)(01), p. 17 (1978). 140 But what is crucial in this case is the fact that the record shows that ultimately it was not made clear to the jury that the knife was admitted solely for illustrative purposes. After admission only as a similar knife, Thomas reiterated that it was the knife which had been in police custody. This testimony occurred in connection with the admission of the envelope in which the knife was alleged to have been kept. It gave far more strength to the knife as an exhibit than was proper under the limited admission. The court gave no further instruction to the jury than is found in the transcript above. While no further specific instruction was requested by Carson, the precise and specific objections to the admission of the knife in evidence and to the admission of the envelope were clear. 141 Further, the knife was one of the exhibits taken to the jury room. It rarely is error to have such illustrative evidence introduced in the jury room, but in general: (J)ust as the testimony of witnesses is not sent to the jury room, so illustrative objects should be left behind when the jury retires to deliberate. This practice will reduce the likelihood that jurors will use the object as a source of original inference. Moreover, it will eliminate any incentive for counsel to use illustrative objects solely as a method of smuggling argument into the jury room. 22 Wright & Graham, Fed.Prac. & Pro. § 5174 p. 137; see United States v. Cox, 633 F.2d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 844, 102 S.Ct. 159, 70 L.Ed.2d 130 (1981). Under these particular circumstances, sending the knife into the jury room was an additional strengthening of its force as an exhibit. 142 Under all these circumstances, we must conclude that the record reveals the district court was in error in admitting in evidence the knife under the ambiguous posture which resulted. Such error clearly was prejudicial in view of the bitterly disputed factual issue concerning the alleged possession of a knife by Carson and the role that the alleged possession would play in justifying the force which the police officers used against Carson in effecting the arrest. This prejudicial error also justifies remanding the case for a new trial.