Opinion ID: 2626256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Characterizing the Question

Text: The majority contends that the prosecutor's question was improper because it was analogous to the were-they-lying questions held impermissible in other jurisdictions. A were-they-lying question generally unfolds as follows: Typically, the prosecutor will first ask the defendant if he heard the testimony of one or more of the state's witnesses. Then the prosecutor will ask the defendant if the witnesses' testimony was accurate. If the defendant states that the witnesses' testimony was not accurate, the prosecutor will ask the defendant to comment on the veracity of the witnesses' testimony by asking the defendant, Were they lying? State v. Pilot, 595 N.W.2d 511, 516 n. 1 (Minn.1999). I disagree with the majority's central hypothesis that the question put to Maluia is comparable to one which asks a defendant whether the prosecution's witnesses have lied. A plain reading of the inquiry here confirms that the prosecutor's question was confined to plumbing Maluia's personal knowledge for facts or circumstances bearing on the credibility of the prosecution's percipient witnesses to the crime. In no event was Maluia cornered into accusing those who previously took the stand of perjuring themselves before the jury. In contending otherwise, the majority is blind to the distinction between the were-they-lying questions typified in Pilot, and questions phrased to elicit extrinsic evidence of another witness's bias. Those of the latter type are distinguishable because they strive to illuminate facts  as opposed to mere opinion  from which the jury may independently adduce whether a witness's testimony is free of fabrication. See United States v. Akitoye, 923 F.2d 221, 223-225 (1st Cir.1991) (whether defendant kn[ew] of any reason why Mr. Aina would lie about you? inquired into the existence of any known basis for bias on the part of a key witness, and was therefore not a were-they-lying question); United States v. Cole, 41 F.3d 303, 309 (7th Cir.1994) (holding as valid [those] questions that ask the testifying witness if he or she knows of biases or motives of another witness). The majority's effort to exclude the prosecutor's question [1] simply ignores the commonsense meaning of the words actually employed. [2]