Opinion ID: 789452
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Use of Proffer Statements at Trial

Text: 14 By letter dated June 28, 2002, Johnson's counsel, who also represents him on this appeal, advised prosecutors that his client no longer wished to pursue cooperation. In late October 2002, when Johnson's case proceeded to trial, an issue arose as to the admissibility of Johnson's proffer statements to rebut assertions made by his counsel in his opening statement to the jury and in his cross-examination of Det. Campana. 15
16 In his opening statement, Johnson's counsel announced that the defense theory was mistaken identity: I want to be very clear with you at the outset, what the defense's position is as to the first four sales [i.e., the crack sales] and that is, that this is a case of mistaken identity. Trial Tr. at 22. In support of this theory, defense counsel stated that Leotha Barrow's brother Jamal was the real perpetrator of the charged crimes: 17 [T]he guy on that tape, on August 15th, is not Calvin Johnson but Jamal Barrow, and the person who sold drugs to the undercover agent April 19th, 2001 was not Calvin Johnson, it was Jamal Barrow, the same person who is on that tape. And on May 15th it was Jamal Barrow not Calvin Johnson, the same person who is on the August 15th tape. 18 . . . And that's the person who also sold not only on August 15th, but also, August 22nd to the same undercover. 19 Id. at 22-23. 20 In cross-examining Det. Campana, defense counsel not only highlighted various discrepancies between the officer's testimony regarding the April 19, 2001 crack sale and his official report, he accused Det. Campana of fabricating his meeting with the confidential informant at 215 Schaefer Street on that date: You made up about meeting the C.I. there that day, didn't you? Trial Tr. at 124. 21
22 The government argued that it was entitled to rebut the assertions made by counsel in his opening statement and on cross-examination with proffer statements by Johnson admitting that he routinely sold crack at 215 Schaefer Street in 2001. In response, defense counsel conceded that Johnson admitted that ... he sold crack out of 215 Schaffer [sic] Street. Id. at 156. But, [h]e did not admit, my recollection is, that he sold on any of the occasions presently charged in the indictment.... Id. The government submitted that counsel's distinction was disingenuous because at the time of the proffer statements, Johnson had the complaint, which charged specifically the dates and in detail the transactions that occurred at 215 Schaffer [sic] Street. He also had the indictment, which charged him on the specific dates that we are now hearing testimony about. Id. at 157. In any event, the government argued that one statement by Barrow could fairly be construed as an admission to the charged April 19, 2001 crack sale. 23 Johnson related that [Leotha] Barrow was responsible for Johnson's arrest. Johnson recalled that Carvin Skidmore called Barrow asking for ten bags of crack cocaine. Since Barrow did not have the ten bags he sent Skidmore to Johnson who sold Skidmore the crack. If — the government will argue on summation that specific reference relates to the April 19th sale, which the undercover already testified about and [defense counsel] Mr. Lind elicited on cross-examination I believe from Detective Rodriguez, that Carvin Skidmore made a call that day to purchase ten bags of crack cocaine, that when the [undercover] arrived at 215 Schaffer [sic] that undercover asked, hey, we are looking for Petey, which is the codefenda[n]t, Barrow's, nickname. Instead, Johnson sold the crack to both Mr. Skidmore and the undercover officer. That's a specific reference to the sale here, Your Honor. 24 Id. at 158. 25 The district court ruled that defense counsel's assertions were fairly rebutted by evidence of Johnson's proffer statements that he sold crack cocaine from that location during the same period of time, although the court advised defense counsel that he could certainly argue to the jury that the admissions did not relate to the specific dates charged in the indictment. Id. at 160. 4 26
27 Elizabeth O'Connor, a special agent with the Drug Enforcement Administration, testified at trial to statements made by Johnson at the various proffer sessions. 5 She stated that Johnson disclosed that [i]n early 2001 he returned to New York from North Carolina and began selling narcotics in the vicinity of 214 Schaffer [sic]. Id. at 174. 6 Johnson reported that [i]nitially, he sold heroin, but because crack was more profitable, he soon started selling that drug. Id. Johnson explained that, for a time, he and Leotha Barrow sold crack together, but because his sales exceeded Barrow's, Johnson decided to operate on his own. Agent O'Connor testified that Johnson blamed Barrow for his arrest because there was one occasion where [authorities] sent an informant to purchase crack from Barrow, Barrow didn't have any, Barrow directed the [informant] to go to the defendant and the [informant] did that and purchased crack cocaine. Id. Agent O'Connor further stated that, in the course of the debriefings, Johnson admitted that his nickname was 50 Cal and identified the informant to whom he sold drugs as Carvin Skidmore. Id. at 174-75. At no point in the debriefings did Johnson mention the name Jamal Barrow, nor did he ever tell authorities that they had the wrong man. Id. at 174-76.