Opinion ID: 2319400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Government's Witness

Text: The government called one witness during the § 23-110 hearing, Mr. Baer. In response to government counsel's question as to whether he attempted to present Mr. Plummer as a witness in Mr. Long's retrial proceeding, Mr. Baer declared, I believe that because of the nature of his testimony in the first trial and because of the Fifth Amendment issue, I don't believe I presented Mr. Plummer in the second trial. By nature of his testimony Mr. Baer explained that he was referring to the cross-examination questions the prosecutor had asked Mr. Plummer, at Mr. Long's first trial, relating to Mr. Plummer's alleged theft of Mr. Tilghman's basketball shoes and his alleged threats against Mr. Tilghmansomething to the effect that Mr. Til[gh]man was lucky that all they did was take his shoes because they were threatening to stab him. In February 1998, Mr. Baer spoke with men who were incarcerated with Mr. Long about Mr. Tilghman; three men refused to speak with him. Of those to whom he spoke, Mr. Baer was skeptical of what they were telling [him] for a number of reasons, including their serious criminal charges and inconsistencies in what they told [Mr. Baer]. He became concerned about whether they were telling the truth. He moved to withdraw from the case because of ethical concerns about presenting testimony that he knew to be false. The motions judge advised him to consult with Bar Counsel. Bar Counsel advised him to try to persuade Mr. Long not to present false testimony, but if he was not successful, he should present the testimony. Mr. Baer withdrew his motion to withdraw. Mr. Baer informed Mr. Long that he did not believe Mr. Stewart was credible and Mr. Long agreed not to present him as a witness. However, Mr. Long disagreed with Mr. Baer's decision not to call Ms. Wheeler, so Mr. Baer called her as a witness. Mr. Baer spoke with the doctor at the D.C. Jail about Mr. Long's right hand injury and that doctor said that the hand injury would not have prevented Mr. Long from firing the gun, and therefore, Mr. Baer did not call the doctor as a witness. Mr. Baer was able to make contact with Ms. Rauch. He determined that she would not be helpful at all to Mr. Long because she claimed that at the time of the Williamson shooting, Mr. Long was asleep in her apartment, but Mr. Long had informed Mr. Baer that he was asleep in Florence Green's apartment when the shooting occurred. In addition, Mr. Baer's July 18, 1997, notes show that according to Mr. Nesbitt, Mr. Tilghman told [Ms. Rauch] . . . to hide the guns and that both . . . Mr. Long, and Mr. Til[gh]man had guns. On cross-examination, Mr. Heslep wanted to know why Mr. Baer called Mr. Plummer during the first trial, but not Mr. Flowers, Mr. Stewart and Mr. Hunter. Mr. Baer replied that he had no reason not to put on Mr. Plummer and that he became skeptical of the others because. . . they refused to speak with [him] at first and because they all had very serious charges which was going to detract from their credibility. He also thought their location on the same block with Mr. Long at the D.C. Jail, would have been a pretty big coincidence. However, he did not recall examining the records at the D.C. Jail to determine whether Mr. Long and the others were in the same block at the jail. Although he had some of the men to whom he had spoken brought to the courthouse for the second trial because Mr. Long wanted [him] to call them, he did not put them on the stand because it was a combination of them asserting the Fifth Amendment, . . . [and] there were disadvantages to calling them that [he] had discussed with Mr. Long and [Mr. Long] agreed that it would be better not to call at least some of them. As an example of a disadvantage, Mr. Baer pointed to the government's cross-examination questions, posed during Mr. Long's first trial, about some kind of a conspiracy to get Mr. Til[gh]man and the government's revelation that for the second trial . . . they were going to pursue that line of cross-examination with the other witnesses, other than Mr. Plummer. Mr. Baer agreed that the conspiracy line of Mr. Plummer's cross-examination at the first trial hadn't been a complete disaster. When asked why, then, he had not read Mr. Plummer's testimony at the first trial into the record of the second trial after Mr. Plummer asserted the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Baer said: I can't recall if I considered it, but all of his testimony would have come in. . . . I can't recall if it occurred to me or not. It may not have occurred to me. Mr. Baer probably did not discuss the introduction of the transcript of Mr. Plummer's testimony with Mr. Long. On redirect examination, Mr. Baer was again asked about Mr. Plummer's cross-examination during the first trial. He declared that it was quite a surprise to [him] that [Mr.] Plummer was alleged to have been wearing [Mr.] Til[gh]man's shoes and it was also a surprise to [him] that he was alleged to have been biased against [Mr.] Til[gh]man in this plot to potentially stab him, so that made his testimonythat hurt his credibility. As to the reading of Mr. Plummer's cross-examination into the record of the second trial, Mr. Baer asserted: I would probably be pretty reluctantthinking back on it now, I would probably be pretty reluctant to do that, based on the cross-examination.