Opinion ID: 2006639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: ) Pretrial Motion Practice

Text: On July 31, 1998, more than three months before trial, the prosecution informed defense counsel by letter that it did not intend to offer testimony in its direct case regarding other murders unless the door is opened through argument, cross-examination or presentation of evidence by the defendant. The People warned that if defendant raised voluntariness claims which in any way relate to what took place during the times the defendant was making statements regarding the Diaz, Toro or Holl[e]y murders, they would seek to present rebuttal evidence concerning the interrogation as a whole. In an August 10, 1998 letter in reply, defense counsel acknowledged: We recognize that redaction of evidence of the prior homicides necessarily creates gaps in the time-line of the interrogation. . . . Please be assured that we will not exploit these gaps by arguing to the jury that these gaps reflect the time when impermissible pressure was brought to bear upon [defendant]. On August 31, 1998, defendant moved for a pretrial order redacting from his confession any reference to the other homicides. The People responded that for the first hour and three quarters of the interrogation, defendant spoke about four murders intertwined with his repeated request that police release his family. The People offered to structure their direct examination to eliminate all conversations regarding the four bodies and the defendant's demands to have his family released. The prosecution again warned defendant against opening the door to his admissions through, for example, questions about time gaps in the confession or alleged promises made by police about his family's release. The prosecution maintained that it would be unfair to require the investigators to answer questions about any alleged promises without being able to explain to the jury the entire substance of that conversation. After extensive oral argument, the court told defense counsel that many issues in the case could open the door to the full confession. To avoid that outcome, the trial court offered defense counsel the opportunity to submit a wish list of suggested redactions from the confession. The court additionally invited defense counsel to submit proposed questions for cross-examination, so that the court could, in advance, point out areas that might be in the danger zone. Plainly attentive to the potential for prejudice to defendant, the court stressed that the other statements could be relevant to issues in the case, requiring examination of the prejudicial or probative value of the statements themselves. Despite the trial judge's suggestion, defendant chose not to provide a list of proposed redactions. Thus, without benefit of a proposal from defense counsel, the court issued its pretrial order: The People . . . point out that during the time period that Inv. Sheridan and Sgt. Gropp spoke to the defendant, there was intertwined conversation regarding other issues dealing with the release of his family. . . . The prosecution, however, is concerned that the period of time taken up regarding the conversations on the Diaz, Toro and Holley murders may be raised by the defense on the issue of voluntariness on the Matos-Rodri[g]uez murder, which is the subject of this trial. The People wish to reserve the right to question the investigators on re-direct examination should the defense `open the door' to an enlarged area of questioning. The Court is sensitive to the People's request but feels there is no way to make a definitive order in advance of the trial on the People's request. Therefore, it is the direction of the Court that the People should structure their direct examination regarding the conversations between the defendant and the police from 5:45 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on November 7, 1996 [ sic ] in a way in which all conversations regarding references to `4 bodies' and the defendant's demand to have his family released are eliminated. The Court will allow leeway to the prosecution by way of leading questions on these issues. The Court will preserve the People's right to challenge the defense cross-examination and to raise the issue as to whether the defendant has raised any issue as to the voluntariness of the statement relating to what took place during the times the defendant was making statements regarding the Diaz, Toro, and Holley murders. [23]