Opinion ID: 2361073
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: probing and plain error

Text: Counsel for Dr. Trowell's estate contends that the trial judge erred by failing to interrogate Ms. Baucom's attorney and to demand further explanation of his strikes. An examination of the record persuades me that any such point was waived. At the conclusion of the Batson hearing in this case, the trial judge indicated that the defense had not proved discrimination in the plaintiff's exercise of her peremptory challenges. The following colloquy ensued: THE COURT: Well, if there is nothing else. . . . COUNSEL FOR THE HOSPITAL: Nothing else. COUNSEL FOR DR. TROWELL'S ESTATE: Nothing further. Neither at this point nor at any earlier time during the hearing did either defense attorney ask the judge to propound questions to Ms. Baucom's counsel or to probe counsel's explanations in any other way. To paraphrase Hunter v. United States, 606 A.2d 139, 144 (D.C.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 991, 113 S.Ct. 509, 121 L.Ed.2d 444 (1993): Litigants should not be permitted to keep some of their [demands] in their hip pockets and to disclose them only to the appellate tribunal; [o]ne cannot take his chance on a favorable verdict, reserving a right to impeach it if it happens to go the other way. Palmer Constr. Co. v. Patouillet, 42 A.2d 273, 274 (D.C. [Mun.App.] 1945); see also Hopkins v. United States, 595 A.2d 995, 996 n. 3 (D.C.1991) (quoting Patouillet ). We recently held in In re A.R., 679 A.2d 470 (D.C.1996), an appeal from an order terminating parental rights, that the appellant father could not be heard to complain in this court that the judge had failed to call or to interrogate certain witnesses, where the father had not requested the judge at trial to call or interrogate them. Id. at 477-78 & n. 11. The present case is identical in principle to In re A.R. Counsel for Dr. Trowell's estate cites Tursio, supra, for the proposition that the judge erred in this case by not probing further. We stated in Tursio that [a]ppellant's prima facie showing of discrimination here was so compelling that the trial court should have probed the prosecutor in detail about his different treatment of similarly situated jurors. 634 A.2d at 1213. We so concluded, in part, because the trial court, despite a strong, clear, and timely defense request, did not conduct a sufficient inquiry. . . . Id. (Emphasis added.) As a member of the division which decided Tursio, I certainly did not intend either to fashion or to countenance a departure from one of the most fundamental principles of the appellate process: In our jurisprudential system, trial and appellate processes are synchronized in contemplation that review will normally be confined to matters appropriately submitted for determination in the court of first resort. Questions not properly raised and preserved during the proceedings under examination, and points not asserted with sufficient precision to indicate distinctly the party's thesis, will normally be spurned on appeal. Miller v. Avirom, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 367, 369, 384 F.2d 319, 321 (1967); see also D.D. v. M.T., 550 A.2d 37, 48 (D.C.1988) (quoting Miller ). Counsel for the defendants had ample opportunity in this case to ask the judge to pose additional questions to Ms. Baucom's attorney. Having failed to avail themselves of that opportunity, they cannot now be heard to complain that the trial judge's interrogation was insufficient or deficient.