Opinion ID: 2088920
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellant's Request for Counsel

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court erred in permitting the government to introduce testimony that upon arrest, he exercised his Constitutional right to consult counsel. The record does not support appellant's contention that the prosecutor deliberately elicited this information, although he did ask a follow-up question. [11] In response to defense counsel's objection, the prosecutor explained that his questions were designed to show whether appellant was lucid and able to converse logically. The trial court directed the prosecutor to ask the question directly, and indicated to defense counsel that his request for the testimony to be struck would only call attention to the error; defense counsel agreed. Accordingly, although an immediate cautionary instruction would have been appropriate, United States v. Williams, 181 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 190, 556 F.2d 65, 67, cert. denied, 431 U.S. 972, 97 S.Ct. 2936, 53 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1977), this case is not analogous to United States v. Liddy, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 109-111, 509 F.2d 428, 442-43 (1974), where the prosecutor intentionally elicited testimony about defendant's efforts to retain counsel and emphasized that fact in closing argument, and, here, it was not reversible error to refuse such instruction. Here the testimony about wanting to speak to a lawyer was blurted out, Williams, supra, 181 U.S. App.D.C. at 190, 556 F.2d at 67. Although the prosecutor should alert witnesses to avoid such responses, under the circumstances, we are satisfied that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 189-90, 556 F.2d at 66-67; see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23-24, 81 S.Ct. 824, 827-28, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The evidence of guilt was strong, and the prosecutor made no further reference to appellant's statement about wanting to speak to counsel.