Opinion ID: 1778765
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 27

Heading: the use of perjury charges to intimidate witnesses who testify to matters with which the prosecutor disagrees is incompatible with the right to a fair trial.

Text: ś 144. Manning contends that the prosecutor improperly coerced a defense witness by threatening him with perjury charges. Keith Higgins, a witness for the defense, testified differently at trial than he had in a prior sworn statement to the police. After Higgins testimony, defense counsel asked to approach the bench. While there, the following exchange took place. BY MR. ALLGOOD: If your Honor please, while we're up here, uh, I was going to ask to do this at the recess, I don't want to do anything that'sâ thatâ that will in any way impinge upon the trial of this case; however, I think the last witness is in fact going to be charged with perjury, and I would think the Court would understand why; he has sworn two different ways on two different occasions. BY THE COURT: It will not beâ BY MR. ALLGOOD: I don't want to do that during the course of the trial. BY THE COURT: It will not be done ifâ whatâ I have no control over what charges may or may not be made, but I do have control over this trial. BY MR. ALLGOOD: Right. BY THE COURT: It will not be done during the course of this trial. BY MR. ALLGOOD: That's what I wanted to ask the Court about. I justâ I wanted to ask the Court guidance on that. I didn't want to askâ I didn't want to just go out and have somebody shooting an affidavit out and charging him and have him picked up during the trialâ BY THE COURT: No. BY MR. ALLGOOD:â and there being a problem. BY THE COURT: Not duringâ it will be a problem if you do it during the course of this trial. BY MR. ALLGOOD: I will make sure I'm not going to have that done. BY THE COURT: Thank you. And then you want to speak to the bailiff for a moment? BY MR. WILLIAMSON: Yes, sir. BY THE COURT: You mayâ you may do so. BY MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you, your Honor. BY MR. ALLGOOD: May I likewise speak to the sheriff a minute? BY THE COURT: You may. (MR. WILLIAMSON CONFERS WITH BAILIFF) (MR. ALLGOOD CONFERS WITH SHERIFF) BY THE COURT: You may proceed. ś 145. Manning alleges that [t]his exchange, although out of hearing of the jury, appears to have been within hearing of at least one defense witnessâ Mario Hall, then on the stand. He contends that Hall, the bailiff, or the sheriff, certainly must have transmitted this exchange back to the witness room where other witnesses may have been intimidated to testify the way the prosecution wanted them to. ś 146. The record is totally devoid of any such inference. Manning cites absolutely no authority for this assignment of error, and as such this Court is not bound to address it. Rogers v. State, 599 So.2d 930, 934 (Miss. 1992). Furthermore, this assignment of error is procedurally barred because the record reflects no contemporaneous objection to the district attorney's conduct. Hunter, supra . We find no reversible error.