Opinion ID: 204016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cross-examination of Clarke

Text: Clarke next argues that the prosecutor improperly used Clarke's post- Miranda silence while cross-examining him. On direct examination, Clarke testified, contrary to Detective Gavin, that he told the detective that he had once brought a prostitute to 22 Skyview Lane and that when he could not pay her, she threatened to accuse him of rape. During cross-examination, the following exchange occurred: Q. It's your testimony ____ A. It's my testimony today before the jurors that I did told [Detective Gavin] I brought someone, a guest, a prostitute, at 22 Skyview Lane. Q. Sir, isn't it true that you told Detective Gavin that you never brought anyone to Skyview Lane, right sir? A. Totally impossible. Q. And sir, when she asked you, she asked you, didn't she, sir, how the woman would know the inside and outside of that house, right? [Defense Counsel]: Objection THE COURT: Sustained. [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, may I be heard at sidebar? THE COURT: No, you may not. Sustained. Move on, let's go. [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, may I be heard at side bar? THE COURT: No, you may not. Q. You were asked about the description of the house, correct, Mr. Clarke? [Defense attorney]: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. Sir, you'd agree with me that Detective Gavin wouldn't have asked that question if you had said that you had brought someone to Skyview Lane, right, Mr. Clarke? [Defense Attorney]: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. [Prosecutor]: Your Honor, may I be heard at side bar? THE COURT: No, you may not. Let's move on. Q. You'd agree, sir, that that question wouldn't make any sense, right, sir? [Defense Attorney]: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. You'd agree, sir, that Detective Gavin would have no reason to ask you about how she would be able to describe the inside and outside of the house if you had told her that you brought someone in that house, right, Mr. Clarke? [Defense Attorney]: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. Q. And Detective Gavin asked you that question, didn't she, Mr. Clarke? [Defense Attorney]: Objection. THE COURT: Sustained. (Tr. v. II at 278-80.) Later in the cross-examination, the prosecutor asked: When you knew, sir, that mistaken identity would not work as a defense, isn't that when you said ... she was a prostitute? ( Id. at 293.) The trial court sustained defense counsel's objection and ordered the [j]ury [to] disregard the last question. ( Id. ) The Massachusetts Appeals Court held this cross-examination did not amount to improper use of Clarke's post- Miranda silence, again because the trial court had sustained defense counsel's objections to all of those questions and the jury consequently never heard the answer or that it was the defendant, not Detective Gavin, who terminated the interview. Clarke, 2003 WL 22881000, at . That determination was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court precedent. The Government might improperly use a defendant's post- Miranda silence simply by posing questions to a witness, even where the witness does not answer. See Ellen v. Brady, 475 F.3d 5, 12-14 (1st Cir.2007). In addition, [a] prosecutor's persistence in referring to the defendant's post- Miranda silence ... may result in a [constitutional] violation even when no evidence of the defendant's silence is submitted to a jury. [2] Id. at 14. But that was not the case here. The prosecutor's questions did not directly or indirectly suggest that Clarke might have invoked his right to remain silent. And the trial court prevented any response from Clarke from which jurors might have inferred that he invoked that right. In addition, both before and after trial, the court instructed jurors generally to disregard questions and evidence to which an objection had been sustained. See Greer, 483 U.S. at 764-65, 107 S.Ct. 3102 (addressing a single objectionable question); see also And˙jar-Basco, 488 F.3d at 559-60; Ellen, 475 F.3d at 11.