Opinion ID: 2187643
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intimidation of Defense Witnesses

Text: After a recess for the three-day Independence Day holiday weekend, the trial resumed on Tuesday, July 5, 1983, with the defense continuing with its witnesses. That afternoon, defense counsel called one Pete Helmey to the stand. In response to defense counsel's question whether Helmey recalled talking to defense counsel on the telephone on Saturday, July 2, Helmey, on the advice of his attorney, who had been appointed by the court that same afternoon, declined to answer on the ground that his answer might incriminate him. There then followed a hearing out of the presence of the jury during which defense counsel informed the court that he had received a telephone call from Helmey's wife on Friday night, July 1, which caused defense counsel to call Helmey on Saturday morning. Helmey told defense counsel that Whitesell, who had been returned to the Lawrence County jail on Friday evening, had said after watching the news on television, I lied about him on the witness stand and hung the son of a bitch. Helmey then informed defense counsel that he had two other witnesses in the jail who had heard the same statement. Defense counsel then held separate telephone conversations with these two persons, Dave Ventling and Mike Downen, who both informed him that they had heard Whitesell say, I lied about him on the witness stand and I'm going to hang the son of a bitch. Defense counsel then subpoenaed Helmey, Ventling, and Downen as defense witnesses. Defense counsel then informed the trial court that he had learned from Ventling on July 5 that after the subpoenas had been served on the three in the Lawrence County jail Helmey had received a call from someone whom Helmey referred to as Jeff, following which a jailer came and took Helmey from his cell. Ventling testified that he was taken downstairs, where he talked to Deputy Russell, who read Ventling his Miranda rights and then asked him what was going on up there. Ventling replied, Dwane, really I don't  I just don't know anything. Ventling was taken back upstairs and placed in the drunk tank with Helmey. Ventling was later taken back downstairs, where he was interviewed by Agent Litschewski of the State Division of Criminal Investigation. During cross-examination by the deputy state's attorney regarding what he had been told about perjury, Ventling testified: They said that if I get on the stand and lied  with my other sentence I get out tomorrow, and that being on probation, if I was charged and convicted of perjury  and I says, That's lying on the stand. And he said, Yes. And he says if I'm tried and convicted of perjury, he said, You'll spend 15 years down at Sioux Falls plus another five that you're on probation. In response to the deputy state's attorney's question about what he had heard Whitesell say about lying at the trial, Ventling replied, Honestly, I didn't hear a thing. The only thing that I  I just heard something in the background where he said something, but I couldn't make out what he said. I can't sit here on this stand and say I heard anything. Defense counsel then called Downen to the stand. Although Downen denied hearing Whitesell make any statement on Friday night, July 1, he admitted that he had told defense counsel that he had heard Whitesell make a statement. Downen testified that after he was served with a subpoena he was interviewed by Deputy Russell in the sheriff's office. Downen exercised his constitutional right not to make any statement, after which he was sent back upstairs and placed in the drunk tank with Helmey and Ventling. After discussing with Helmey and Ventling what had happened to them, Downen asked the jailer to take him back downstairs so that he could again speak with Deputy Russell. Downen then told Russell that it was not true that Whitesell had made any statement in front of the television set regarding the fact that he had lied on the stand concerning defendant. Downen testified that he had told defense counsel that he had heard such a statement only because Helmey and Ventling had asked him to do so, based upon their opinion that defendant was not guilty. Downen testified that Russell had advised him that making a false statement on the witness stand was perjury and that it normally carried an equal sentence as to the person being tried. Defense counsel then asked, For instance, you could get life, is that , to which Downen answered, Right, that's what he told me. At the conclusion of the in-camera hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon his claim that the State had interfered with and intimidated his witnesses. South Dakota Constitution, Article VI, § 7 provides: In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him; to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf, and to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. In discussing the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has held: The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Just as an accused has the right to confront the prosecution's witnesses for the purpose of challenging their testimony, he has the right to present his own witnesses to establish a defense. This right is a fundamental element of due process of law. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1023 (1967). In Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 95-96, 93 S.Ct. 351, 352, 34 L.Ed.2d 330, 332 (1972), the trial court had admonished the defendant's only witness as follows: Now you have been called down as a witness in this case by the Defendant. It is the Court's duty to admonish you that you don't have to testify, that anything you say can and will be used against you. If you take the witness stand and lie under oath, the Court will personally see that your case goes to the grand jury and you will be indicted for perjury and the liklihood [sic] is that you would get convicted of perjury and that it would be stacked onto what you have already got, so that is the matter you have got to make up your mind on. If you get on the witness stand and lie, it is probably going to mean several years and at least more time that you are going to have to serve. It will also be held against you in the penitentiary when you're up for parole and the Court wants you to thoroughly understand the chances you're taking by getting on that witness stand under oath. You may tell the truth and if you do, that is all right, but if you lie you can get into real trouble. The court wants you to know that. You don't owe anybody anything to testify and it must be done freely and voluntarily and with the thorough understanding that you know the hazard you are taking. In responding to the claim that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, had been violated, the United States Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, held: In the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the judge's threatening remarks, directed only at the single witness for the defense, effectively drove that witness off the stand, and thus deprived the petitioner of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The admonition by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals might well have given the trial judge guidance for future cases, but it did not serve to repair the infringement of the petitioner's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. 409 U.S. at 98, 93 S.Ct. at 353-54, 34 L.Ed.2d at 333. In United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3rd Cir.1976), the prosecutor on at least three occasions sent messages to a defense witness through defense counsel warning the witness that she was liable to be prosecuted on drug charges, that any testimony she gave would be used as evidence against her, and that because she had turned eighteen it would be possible to bring federal perjury charges against her. The prosecutor also subpoenaed the potential witness to appear before him in his office, where, in the presence of the three undercover agents whose testimony the witness would contradict, advised her that if she testified falsely she could subject herself to a perjury charge. When the witness was called to the stand the following morning, she refused to answer some thirty questions on the ground that the answers might incriminate her. Citing the Washington and Webb cases, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that in view of the fact that the trial court had indicated on the first day of trial that it would warn the defense witness of her right against self-incrimination: The actions of [the prosecutor] were totally unnecessary. Ms. Bell could have made a knowing choice of whether to testify or not on the basis of the formal warning from the court. The pressure brought to bear on her by the Assistant United States Attorney interfered with the voluntariness of her choice and infringed defendant's constitutional right to have her freely-given testimony. This case seems clearly ruled by Webb. True, it was the trial judge in that case who effectively drove that [the defendant's] witness off the stand. 409 U.S. at 98, 93 S.Ct. at 353, 34 L.Ed.2d at 333. Here, it was the influence of the Assistant United States Attorney, ..., a figure somewhat lower in the hierarchy than the trial judge but nonetheless the symbol of the Government's power to prosecute offenders. However good the trial judge found the intentions of [the prosecutor], his bizarre conduct toward a witness for the defense is not to be condoned. It was without doubt responsible for the course pursued by Sally Bell in refusing to testify and to that extent deprived Mr. Boscia of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Under such circumstances the order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania filed August 12, 1975 denying the motion for a new trial will be reversed. Id. at 228. In order to ensure that the defendant be afforded a fair trial on remand, the Court of Appeals directed that a judgment of acquittal be entered unless the government requested use immunity for the witness's testimony in the event she was called to the stand and invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify. Id. at 229. In United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir.1973), an acquitted codefendant who had been called as a witness by the remaining defendants was approached during a recess by a secret service agent at the request of the prosecutor. The agent told the witness that he would be prosecuted for misprison of a felony if he testified in the case. The witness later indicated that he would testify only under subpoena, which was not requested. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, citing Washington and Webb, held that the government's action had substantially interfered with the witness's free and unhampered determination whether to testify and also interfered with the content of such testimony. In State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 797, 305 N.W.2d 808 (1981), a witness who had admitted to the prosecutor that it was he who had committed the robbery with which the defendant was being charged refused to testify after the prosecutor refused to comply with the terms of a plea bargain under which the witness had pleaded guilty to an assault charge and informed the witness that if he testified charges would be filed against him. The Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed the defendant's conviction, holding that he had been clearly prejudiced by the state's interference with his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process as established in Washington. In People v. Pena, 383 Mich. 402, 175 N.W.2d 767 (1970), the prosecuting attorney sent a letter written on official stationery to defendant's alibi witnesses, informing them of elements of the offense of perjury and the possible penalties upon being convicted of perjury. In reversing the defendant's conviction, the Supreme Court of Michigan stated: The Constitutional right of a defendant to call witnesses in his defense mandates that they must be called without intimidation. The manner of testifying is often more persuasive than the testimony itself. A prosecutor may impeach a witness in court but he may not intimidate him  in or out of court. Id. 383 Mich. at 406, 175 N.W.2d at 768 (footnote omitted). Although not reversing the conviction in the case before it because it concluded that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the State's misconduct in improperly threatening defense witnesses with criminal prosecution, the Supreme Court of Iowa accepted the rationale of the Pena case in State v. Ivy, 300 N.W.2d 310 (Iowa 1981). In addition to the conferring upon a defendant the right to call witnesses on his behalf, South Dakota Constitution Article VI, § 7, also guarantees a defendant the right to impeach the state's key witnesses by showing bias on their part. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); State v. Layton, 337 N.W.2d 809 (S.D.1983); State v. Volk, 331 N.W.2d 67 (S.D.1983); State v. Wounded Head, 305 N.W.2d 677 (S.D.1981). Whitesell's testimony was essential to satisfy the State's burden of proof on Count I and was powerful evidence with respect to Count III. He was clearly a crucial witness on those counts. Accordingly, defendant should have been given great latitude in seeking to impeach his testimony. Likewise, the common law rules of evidence, and, we conclude, our court-adopted rules of evidence, see, e.g., SDCL 19-12-1; 19-12-2; 19-14-8; 19-14-9; 19-14-10; and 19-14-19, permit a party to impeach a witness by showing his bias. United States v. Abel, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984); State v. Volk, supra ; State v. Wounded Head, supra ; State v. Goff, 79 S.D. 138, 109 N.W.2d 256 (1961); State v. Kenstler, 44 S.D. 446, 184 N.W. 259 (1921). This does not mean, of course, that there are no restrictions on the type of evidence that a defendant may use to impeach a witness, for impeachment evidence must also satisfy the general test of admissibility. The testimony of Helmey, Ventling, and Downen regarding Whitesell's alleged jail-cell statement would have satisfied this test. We conclude that there is a serious question whether defendant's right to call witnesses on his own behalf and to confront the witnesses against him as guaranteed to him by South Dakota Constitution Article VI, § 7, was violated by the State's threats to bring perjury charges against Helmey, Ventling, and Downen if they testified regarding the statement that they allegedly heard Whitesell make in the Lawrence County jail on the evening of July 1. Although we are satisfied that defendant has made out a prima facie claim that the State interfered with his right to call witnesses on his behalf, we conclude that outright reversal is not necessary. We reach this conclusion because it may very well be that Ventling's and Downen's testimony during the in-camera hearing on July 5 persuaded the trial court that their earlier statements to defense counsel were nothing more than fabrications induced by Helmey's desire to aid Whitesell. Cf. Marshall v. State, 305 N.W.2d 838 (S.D.1981); Pickering v. State, 260 N.W.2d 234 (S.D. 1977). Likewise, it may very well be that Helmey, had he not exercised his right against self-incrimination, would likewise have voluntarily recanted the statement that he had made to defense counsel concerning Whitesell's statement. Accordingly, we will remand the case with directions that the trial court hold a hearing and then enter specific findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the proposed testimony of Helmey, Ventling, and Downen. The State will bear the burden of establishing that its conduct was not the cause of Helmey's refusal to testify or of Ventling's and Downen's recantations. If the trial court finds that the three witnesses voluntarily recanted their earlier statements, the convictions on Count II and of second-degree manslaughter will be affirmed. Otherwise, the trial court is directed to grant a new trial with respect to those convictions. [2] We are aware that the procedure we have outlined is unorthodox and perhaps without precedent in this state. If the State chooses to interfere with a defendant's constitutional right to call witnesses, however, then it must be prepared to live with the consequences of that course of action. We would remind prosecutors that it is the jury's function  not the prosecutor's  to determine the credibility of witnesses. Washington v. Texas, supra . The prosecutor should be content to subject the testimony of defense witnesses to the crucible of the courtroom. It is the prosecutor's duty not simply to prosecute, but to obtain justice with a fair trial. State v. Brandenburg, 344 N.W.2d 702, 705 (S.D.1984).