Opinion ID: 669733
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of threats against government witnesses

Text: 38 After Kyle Taylor testified that the defendant did not have a gun during the incident in Comer Cox Park, the prosecutor sought to impeach him by introducing his prior inconsistent statements. She did this by calling Special Agent Chuck Sharp to testify that Taylor had previously given a different version of the events in a meeting with the prosecutor and Sharp. While the prosecutor was questioning Sharp regarding their meeting with Taylor, the following exchange took place: 39 Q. Did I ask [Taylor] just to tell me his version of what occurred? 40 A. Yes. That's correct. 41 Q. And after I asked him that question, what was his response? 42 A. At first he said he was--he did not want to testify as he had been threatened shortly after the incident.... 43 (Defense counsel objected on the grounds of hearsay and the court overruled the objection). 44 Q. After we briefly discussed that did he agree to tell me what happened on that day? 45 A. Yes, he did. 46 The defendant now argues that it was improper for the prosecutor to elicit this testimony of a threat because there was no substantive evidence of any threats. See United States v. Rios, 611 F.2d 1335, 1349 (10th Cir.1979) (holding that references to threats or danger to prosecution witnesses are improper unless admissible testimony is offered connecting the defendant with the threats or danger). 10 The government does not argue that this statement regarding the threats to the witness was not hearsay. In fact the statement was clearly hearsay, originating from an unidentified party. It was an out-of-court statement, offered to show the truth of the matter asserted--that the witness was threatened leading to him changing his version of the events. The court erred by allowing this evidence over the defendant's hearsay objection. 47 Nevertheless we conclude that this error was harmless. The statement did not directly indicate that the defendant had threatened the witness. In fact, the statement contains no reference to the defendant whatsoever. Furthermore, we find that any suggestion of a threat did not in any way contribute to the jury's verdict. The government did not make any reference to this threat in any of its arguments to the jury; rather, it plainly ignored the statement. Moreover, the evidence against the defendant--the testimony of Anita Witherspoon that the defendant pointed the gun at her and the discovery of the gun found in the car the defendant was driving--was sufficient to enable the jury to convict the defendant. Thus the admission of the implied threat was harmless. 11 48