Opinion ID: 2092066
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Testimony about Prior Contacts

Text: During a pre-trial hearing, some police officers testified that Rodriguez was well known to officers patrolling his neighborhood and that they had had contact with him on other occasions prior to the day of the robbery. Concerned that evidence of these prior contacts with the police might suggest to the jury that Rodriguez had a prior criminal record or at least a criminal disposition, defense counsel requested a ruling in limine to prohibit the government from eliciting such testimony at trial. The court denied the motion, stating: Police officers walk beats every day. . . . [T]hey know people from the police Boys' Club, they know shop owners. Police officers see and know a lot of people; that doesn't mean that they arrested the person. So I don't think that the prejudicial [effect] outweighs the probative [value]. During her opening statement, the prosecutor said that the arresting officers had had prior contacts with Rodriguez and that they knew him from the area and from this particular neighborhood. After summarizing the facts of the robbery and Mr. Woodson's report to the police, the prosecutor continued: So what they [the officers] did, ladies and gentlemen, is, based on their knowledge of Mr. Rodriguez, they located a photograph of Mr. Rodriguez and inserted it into a photo array of nine photographs. Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's emphasis on the fact that these police officers know my client, but the court overruled the objection. During the trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony from three officers about their prior contacts with appellant. The first one to testify, Officer Emiliana Rodriguez, stated that she knew appellant and Lopez from the area and that she had had prior contacts with them. Defense counsel objected to these references as gratuitous and prejudicial. The court offered to give the jury a limiting instruction that just because someone has prior contact, it doesn't mean it's under adverse circumstances, but counsel declined the offer. The court warned the prosecutor, however, to be careful so as not to give the impression to the jury that these previous contacts were an arrest type or stop and search type. The prosecutor assured the court that she had instructed the officers not to say anything about the nature of their contacts and only to limit it to the most neutral terms, that they have seen them in the area and they have just had prior contact with them. . . . Later in the trial, Officer Soto testified that he knew [Rodriguez] from the area and . . . had had contact [with him] the prior day. Defense counsel again objected, but the court overruled the objection, reasoning that contact with a police officer doesn't mean it's adverse circumstances. Officer Soto then said that he knew Tartabull was Cuban and that Tartabull was in the company of Mr. Julio Rodriguez [appellant] on [June] 27th, the day before the robbery. Finally, Officer Martinez testified that he knew Rodriguez, Tartabull, and Lopez just from the area, from patrolling the area. I have patrolled the same area for seven years. I'm quite familiar with just about everyone in the area. When asked when his last contact with Rodriguez occurred before June 28 (the date of the robbery), Martinez replied, June 27th, the day before. Martinez then stated that Officer Soto had reported over the radio on the morning of the robbery that he had two subjects stopped, Lopez and Tartabull, and that one of them they had stopped the day before, one of the Cubans. The defense presented no evidence.