Opinion ID: 177064
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Comments Regarding Defendant's Wife

Text: Defendant argues, quite briefly, that it was improper for the prosecutor to present testimony that Defendant's wife was in a position to destroy work cards and that she had not been present in the courtroom during the trial. We see nothing improper about the testimony concerning possible destruction or removal of work cards. The Government agent was not able to locate work cards from a certain critical time period. Gates testified that Sharon McLain, an employee in the Water Department before and after her marriage to Wells, had access to the work cards as did Defendant himself. Allowing for a common sense inference that a wife might be willing to protect her husband by hiding or destroying evidence, the testimony bears on what may have happened to potential evidence that could not be located after extensive searching. Defendant argues also that a comment about his wife's absence from the courtroom was an attempt to improperly shift the burden to him by pointing out that she did not testify. The questioning came in the following context: Q. And in the exhibit that you are describing, Government's Exhibit 12, involving the four Noce checks to Mr. Gates, were the quality of those copies the best you could do given the format they were given to you in? A. Yes. Q. So sometimes some of the entries are a little fuzzy and difficult to read? A. That's correct. Q. Are you familiar with Sharon McLain? Have you ever met her? A. Yes, I have. Q. She's now the defendant's wife? A. She is. Q. Has she been in the courtroom during these proceedings at all? A. No, she has not. Q. Now, turning to what's been marked as Government's Exhibit 10. Is this a multi page exhibit? A. It is. (Emphasis added.) These questions, the point of which is not entirely clear, came in the middle of a series of questions to Special Agent Massie about Exhibits 12 and 10, summaries of subpoenaed records of Defendant's banking activity and the operation of a sports gambling pool. Significantly, it came before Defendant had the opportunity to present any evidence, so it is highly improbable that the jury would consider it a comment about a failure to produce anyone as a witness. We note also that one or more documents earlier admitted in the case bore a reference to Defendant's wife: a previous witness, for example, had recognized McLain's initialsnotably accompanied by a smiley faceon a document faxed from the Water Department concerning a job order. We are tempted to think that there may have been some reference to McClain in the documents being displayed to the witness that prompted questions about her that appear to have come in from left field. Considering the record as presented, we do not know, and will not further speculate. But even if we considered the question improper, the uncertainty of its import, its momentariness, and its utter isolation suggest that it did not mislead the jury or cause identifiable prejudice. In any case, the comment was not flagrant.