Opinion ID: 2527692
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearing on the Defense's Pretrial Access to Witnesses

Text: {¶ 91} At trial, the defense claimed that the Victim Witness Division of the Montgomery County prosecutor's office unconstitutionally interfered with counsel's ability to interview Short's children, all state witnesses, before trial. [3] In his third proposition of law, Short contends that the trial court erred by failing to hold a hearing to inquire into this claim. {¶ 92} Short's three minor children testified as prosecution witnesses in the guilt phase. According to Jeffrey D. Livingston, the guardian ad litem of the Short children, Rhonda Short's mother, Macy Lane, had custody of Justin, Rhonda's sister Amy Spivey had custody of Tiffany, and Rhonda's sister Gina Gibbs had custody of Jesse. Before trial, the defense filed a motion for an order allowing defense counsel to interview the children in the presence of the guardian ad litem. The trial court did not rule immediately on this motion. {¶ 93} During pretrial proceedings, defense attorney L. Patrick Mulligan told the court that he had been in contact with Livingston, who was working to arrange an interview. Mulligan told the court that the children's guardians were refusing to let the interviews go forward. He said his office had forwarded to him a message from Livingston to the effect that Gina Gibbs and Amy Spivey had said no to the proposed interviews, so there will be no meeting today.    Because he [Livingston] is allowing the guardians to make the call, we are not being given access to the potential witnesses. {¶ 94} The trial court asked Mulligan whether he had any evidence that the state had interfered with defense efforts to interview the children. Mulligan admitted that he had no direct evidence of state interference. He added: The only thing I know from Mr. Livingston was that Amy supposedly is going to contact Victim Witness before making a decision. I don't know if that's been done or not, and I could not seek what was sent to them by Victim Witness. {¶ 95} The prosecutor stated: I'm unaware [of] Victim Witness being contacted or having any contact with thethe legal [guardians]or the Guardian Ad Litem. He added that Livingston had contacted [them] also indicating that [at] the request of defense counsel he contacted the legal custodians to see if he could help in any way in facilitating    an interview or a meeting with    the children, but it's also our understanding that he explained to them that it was their call, it was their decision whether or not they wanted to meet with defense counsel, and apparently they've made that call. {¶ 96} During the state's case-in-chief, Tiffany and Jesse Short testified and were cross-examined by the defense. Before Tiffany's direct testimony, the trial court denied the defense motion to interview the children because there was no evidence that the State interfered in any manner with the Defendant's access to the minor children. {¶ 97} After Justin Short testified on direct examination, the defense raised the access issue again. The defense asked that the trial court strike Justin's testimony, partly on the ground that the defense had no access to him before trial. [4] The trial court asked whether the defense had any evidence that the state had interfered with defense access to Justin. The defense pointed out, [W]e have not had a hearing on that, and the trial court stated: We can still have a hearing. The defense requested a hearing where we may voir dire Justin Short, we may question the    Guardian Ad Litem, and the guardian of Justin Short, and possibly the people from Victim Witness. {¶ 98} The trial court again asked whether the defense had any good faith evidence or basis to suggest that the State in any manner has interfered with the Defendant's access to the witnesses. Counsel replied, At the moment, Your Honor, no, we don't. That's why we're asking for a hearing on this stuff.    [W]e would have to pull people in here from the State and    Justin himself to show that. The court asked: Were you denied access by the State? Defense counsel replied: Your Honor, how would I know? I don't know. However, counsel admitted that they had not tried to contact the children's legal guardians directly. {¶ 99} Initially, the trial court denied the request for a hearing. However, defense counsel then stated: It's my understanding that the contact with the Victim Witness [sic] and they indicated that they wouldn't agree.    We believe that Victim Witness would if asked    say that, that's correct. The trial court stated: I've not heard before that Victim Witness told somebody not to testify. Defense counsel stated: I don't know whether that's a true statement.    What Mr. Livingston said was there was a conversation. The content of that conversation I was not privy to. The trial court decided to call Livingston to testify. {¶ 100} Livingston testified that a couple weeks ago, Mulligan had called him to set up an interview with the children. Livingston agreed that any such interview could be held at his office, and a tentative date was scheduled. Livingston then phoned the three legal guardians. According to Livingston, Lane indicated that she wanted to consult Spivey. Livingston left a message for Gibbs, but he did not testify on whether he had ever reached her. He testified that he spoke to Spivey, but he did not testify to what she said. The meeting between the children and defense counsel did not take place. {¶ 101} Livingston testified that he did not know of any conversations or contacts between any of the legal guardians and the Victim Witness Division. He also testified that the guardians had never stated to him that they had contacted the Victim Witness Division. Defense attorney Mulligan asked whether Livingston recalled telling Mulligan that the custodians were going to contact Victim Witness, but Livingston did not recall making such a statement. {¶ 102} After Livingston's testimony, attorney Mulligan made the following proffer: [B]asically Mr. Livingston and I were trying to set up this meeting as he described. The meeting did not happen. {¶ 103} It's my understanding that oneand I don't know which one exactly to be quite frank about it, Your Honor. {¶ 104} One of the legal custodians called Victim Witness and I don't know the content of that conversation. The meeting did not happen. {¶ 105}    [W]e assume that    the kibosh was put on it at that time. That's an assumption because I don't know the content of the conversation. {¶ 106} The prosecutor asked Mulligan for the source of his assertion that one of the legal custodians had called Victim Witness. Mulligan stated that this information came from Livingston. The trial court asked defense counsel whether they had anything further to present, and counsel said, No. {¶ 107} The trial court denied the defense request for further hearing, finding no evidence that the State in any manner has interfered with the Defendant's access to the witnesses. She added, [A]s I previously indicated, the Defendant and his counsel were free to communicate with the custodians themselves. Short now contends that the trial court's fail[ure]    to hold a hearing with the guardians and the Victim Witness personnel involved denied him due process. This claim lacks merit. {¶ 108} To begin with, Short cites no authority for the proposition that a defendant is entitled to a hearing on an allegation of prosecutorial interference when he is unable to state any facts in support of that allegation. When Short's counsel requested the hearing, they admitted that they had no evidence of interference and did not know whether any interference had actually taken place. The defense repeatedly admitted that it did not know what, if anything, the Victim Witness Division had told the legal guardians. The defense also conceded that they had not asked the guardians about any contact they might have had with the Victim Witness Division. {¶ 109} Nevertheless, the trial court did grant the defense a hearing into its allegation of interference. Short complains that the scope of the hearing was insufficient in that the custodians of the children and certain unidentified Victim Witness personnel did not testify. We disagree. The trial court imposed no limits on the hearing's scope. On the contrary, after Mulligan made his proffer, the court specifically asked whether the defense had anything further, and defense counsel said, No. {¶ 10} The defense did not attempt to call either the guardians or any personnel from the Victim Witness Division to testify at the hearing. Victim Witness personnel, at least, could easily have been called, for the record indicates that Victim Witness personnel were present in court just before the hearing began. According to the transcript, the trial court asked the people from Victim Witness in the back to step out before discussing the defense claims of interference. Nothing in the record suggests that the trial judge would have refused to hear such witnesses had the defense chosen to call them. {¶ 111} Nor did Short's counsel ask the trial court to allow them to interview Justin before cross-examining him. Had they requested such an opportunity, they might have been able to interview Justin there and then. (Alternatively, if Justin or his guardian had refused an interview, Short's counsel could have asked them, on the record, whether the Victim Witness Division had influenced that decision.) Counsel's failure to seek this remedy suggests that the defense was not prejudiced by its inability to interview Justin before trial. {¶ 112} Short's third proposition of law is overruled.