Opinion ID: 2654917
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interpretation of Jail Calls

Text: Jenkins makes various claims related to the government‟s use and interpretation of the recorded jail phone calls. He complains of the court‟s refusal to require the government to disclose its “translations” of the calls prior to trial and argues that the court erred in allowing lay witnesses and the prosecutor to interpret the calls in the absence of expert testimony as to the meaning of what was said in them. Prior to trial, Jenkins filed a “decoding motion” requesting that the government be ordered to disclose in advance of trial how it interpreted the opaque language used in the jail calls. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that there was no law or rule requiring the government to provide such information in discovery. We agree with that ruling. What appellant calls the government‟s interpretation of the conversations (most of which involved Jenkins himself) was 43 not exculpatory evidence,62 nor was it contained in any discoverable document63 or the anticipated testimony of any expert witness.64 It was, essentially, prosecution work product—the government‟s view as to the permissible inferences to be drawn from conversation—which Criminal Rule 16 (a)(2) specifically exempts from discovery.65 We therefore reject Jenkins‟s discovery argument. At trial, the government presented lay witness testimony bearing on the meaning of certain words and phrases spoken in the jail calls. Notably, this included Vanessa Thomas‟s testimony that the phrase “off the water” (which Jenkins used to describe “Old Chizzie Brown”) referred to smoking or being 62 See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). 63 See Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16 (a)(1)(C), (D). 64 See id. R. 16 (a)(1)(E). 65 Super. Ct. Crim. R. 16 (a)(2) (“Except as provided in subparagraphs (a)(1)(A), (B), (D), and (E), this Rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by the attorney for the government or any other government agent investigating or prosecuting the case.”). 44 addicted to PCP.66 It was no abuse of discretion to admit this testimony. A lay witness with personal knowledge about particular slang properly may testify to its meaning.67 As we have explained, when “the reasoning process . . . employed to interpret the street language was the everyday process of language acquisition” as opposed to “special training or scientific or other specialized or professional knowledge,” opinion testimony explaining such language does not veer impermissibly into expert testimony.68 There is no question that the witnesses in this case who “translated” the jail call slang were personally acquainted with appellants or Evans and were members of the milieu in which the slang was used. Thomas, in particular, testified that she was familiar with the use of PCP in her community and had personal knowledge from her daily life that “off the water” 66 Jenkins also argues that it was improper for George Haynes to testify to the meaning of “I need some ink,” “hammer,” and “I got to get on top of that.” Insofar as Jenkins is concerned, this testimony was tangential and innocuous. The statements about “ink,” which Haynes testified meant money, and “hammer,” which he testified meant a gun, were not relevant to the charges of conspiracy or obstruction, and the prosecutor did not mention either term in closing. “I got to get on top of that” was a comment made by Pierre Chaney. Its meaning was obvious; Haynes‟s exegesis (“You got to take care of something”) added nothing. 67 See United States v. Smith, 640 F.3d 358, 365 (D.C. Cir. 2011). 68 King v. United States, 74 A.3d 678, 682-83 (D.C. 2013). 45 referred to PCP use or addiction.69 Lastly, in closing argument the prosecutor argued that the jail calls manifested appellants‟ conspiracy to eliminate Evans. In particular, the prosecutor urged the jury to infer that Evans was the person whom the speakers referred to as “Chizzie Brown” and similar names. We do not agree with Jenkins that the prosecutor thereby presented herself as an expert or argued inferences without foundation in the record. In closing argument, a prosecutor may make “reasonable comments on the evidence and may draw inferences that support the government‟s theory of the case” so long as those inferences are not “unsupported by the evidence.”70 This is so even though the evidence may be ambiguous. In Mason v. United States, for example, we acknowledged that the defendant‟s recorded phone calls from the jail “appeared to have been quite cryptic” and that their “probative value [was] not readily apparent.”71 The government and the defense disagreed as to what the conversations meant and whether they were inculpatory. Nonetheless, 69 Similarly, Haynes testified that he and Israel had employed code words during phone conversations they knew to be recorded, and that he was familiar with Israel‟s vernacular. 70 Lewis v. United States, 996 A.2d 824, 832 (D.C. 2010). 71 53 A.3d 1084, 1100 (D.C. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). 46 we held that because “[t]he government offered the jury plausible interpretations of the calls,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that “the resolution of these ambiguities was best left for the jury.”72 Here, too, while the phone calls may have been ambiguous, there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the government‟s interpretation. That Jenkins meant Evans when he spoke of “Chizzie Brown” who was “off that water” was supported, for example, by (1) the testimony that Evans was known as “Charlie Brown,” (2) Vanessa Thomas‟s explication that “off the water” referred to PCP use or addiction, and (3) the testimony of Evans‟s friends that he was addicted to PCP and last seen going to buy it with Jenkins. The identification was further corroborated by Jenkins‟s statement that he “had him . . . up in Adams Morgan” and Macey Robertson‟s testimony that Evans told her he had been confronted by Jenkins there; and by Jenkins‟s assurance to Israel about “this weekend” just before the weekend Evans was killed. In light of this and other evidence, the prosecutor did not present herself as an expert on slang, but simply argued the permissible inferences. 72 Id. 47