Opinion ID: 2075944
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the conviction of tampering with physical evidence

Text: Roundtree's notice of appeal specifies that he is appealing from both of his convictions. No argument was made in his brief with respect to the conviction of tampering with physical evidence, nor was the point argued orally. In the present case, despite the mishandling by investigators of the paper bag which allegedly contained Roundtree's semen, the evidence of tampering against Roundtree was compelling. His defense was effectively reduced to absurdityhe did not know if his chicken sandwich bag was stapled shut or had the word Evidence written on it. The testimony against him in regard to that offense was provided exclusively by witnesses other than W.D.; she did not testify about it at all. Any impeachment of W.D.'s credibility would thus be irrelevant to the tampering conviction. Moreover, Roundtree had ample reason to tamper with the evidence even if he was not guilty of sodomy. If, for example, W.D.'s account was only partially trueif she was compelled to participate in his masturbation, but if there was no cunnilingusthen Roundtree would not be guilty of the specific crime with which he was charged, but would still have had ample motive to destroy or conceal the brown bag containing semen and soiled tissues. In Gethers v. United States, 556 A.2d 201, 205 (D.C.1989), we recently held that where a defendant is convicted of two offenses and one conviction must be reversed, the second conviction can stand only if there was no prejudicial spillover from the first. It may at first blush appear incongruous to vote to sustain a finding of guilt in connection with a cover-up when I think the conviction of the crime sought to be concealed should be reversed. That seeming incongruity is dissipated, however, when one considers the evidence as a whole and, in particular, the lack of any relationship between W.D.'s testimony and the tampering offense. I discern no prejudicial spillover in this case. Accordingly, I would affirm Roundtree's conviction of tampering with physical evidence. [41]