Opinion ID: 2553473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Prosecutor's Opening Statement Was Improper

Text: This case raises the question whether the prosecutor improperly mentioned in opening that appellant had made an inculpatory statement to the police, without first seeking a ruling from the trial judge on the legal viability of the prosecutor's planned strategy to introduce only the inculpatory part of appellant's statement, without introducing the exculpatory part of the statement. [4] Here, the prosecutor had good reason to doubt that his strategy would succeed. As the government's brief acknowledges, we have not ruled on application of the rule of completeness to the situation presented here, and, as the majority notes, our opinion in Johns v. United States, 434 A.2d 463 (D.C.1981), casts doubt on the prosecutor's operative assumption. See ante at 11. [5] Under the circumstances, the prosecutor should have presented his planned strategy to the trial judge for a ruling in advance so as to avoid mentioning evidence in opening statement that would not be introduced at trial, as happened here. It is improper for counsel to . . . refer in an opening statement to evidence without a good faith basis for believing that such evidence will be introduced. Najafi v. United States, 886 A.2d 103, 108 (D.C.2005) (citing Frederick v. United States, 741 A.2d 427, 440 n. 25 (D.C.1999) (citing ABA STANDARDS FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE 7.4 (The Defense Function) (1993))). That the comment was made in opening statement does not exclude it from the obligation of the prosecutor to avoid making statements of fact to the jury not supported by proper evidence introduced during trial. Gaither v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 154, 172, 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (1969). Opening statements must be careful to hew to the evidence to be presented at trial because [f]irst impressions are not easy to dispel. Najafi, 886 A.2d at 108. Thus, we have said, there is no doubt regarding where the obligation to be fair and accurate lies. Anthony v. United States, 935 A.2d 275, 284 (D.C.2007). It is incumbent upon the prosecutor `to take care to ensure that statements made in opening and closing arguments are supported by evidence introduced at trial.' Id. (quoting United States v. Small, 316 U.S.App.D.C. 15, 19, 74 F.3d 1276, 1280 (1996)). In light of this well-established obligation, I take exception to the prosecutor's comment to the trial court, quoted by the majority, that counsel had gambled in their opening statements and that you take the risk. See ante at 6. The prosecutor should have sought a ruling from the judge, not taken a gamble. We have rejected that sporting theory of justice; a criminal trial is not a crap shoot. Even though the prosecutor's opening was improper, see United States v. Novak, 918 F.2d 107, 109 (10th Cir.1990) (noting that the opportunity to present an objective summary in opening statement does not allow the prosecution to refer to evidence of questionable admissibility), I do not believe that the prosecutor should have been forced to follow through on the promise to introduce the evidence he previewed in opening statement. When the court's ruling proved that the prosecutor's strategy was legally wanting, the choice whether to introduce appellant's statement as part of the government's case, as he had said he would during opening (including weighing the consequences to the government's case of failing to follow through with the jury), was for the prosecution to make.