Opinion ID: 1931722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: I. The Proposed Cross-Examination

Text: a. The Proffer of Bias Defense counsel met his initial burden in proposing to examine a witness for partiality by providing a good faith basis to believe that Goodwine was demonstrably biased against Coles. Counsel not only communicated to the trial judge his well-founded belief that the prosecution witness was biased against Coles because he had filed a discrimination suit against the Navy, where Goodwine worked at Marine Corps Headquarters, but also produced documentary evidence (the witness's affidavit) which corroborated that belief. Though not all lawsuits against an employer would necessarily sour an employee against the plaintiff, it was clear that this one did. In an affidavit filed in an administrative proceeding concerning the charge of discrimination, Goodwine stated that, [Coles] had a deleterious effect on the morale of the section because none of us could understand his motivation and we could all see where this was heading. The lawsuit, according to counsel's proffer, implicated Goodwine's supervisor, which possibly gave Goodwine (who had been called as a management witness in the administrative proceeding) further motivation to testify against Coles in order to curry favor with his boss. Presented with this proffer, the trial court should have excluded the cross-examination only upon strong indication that the brief line of questioning requested regarding Goodwine's feelings towards Coles would have confused the jury, unduly harassed the witness, or been otherwise so prejudicial as to justify impairing Coles's constitutional right to confront the witness against him. See Guzman, 769 A.2d at 790; Clayborne, 751 A.2d at 963; see also Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 319, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (holding that petitioner's right of confrontation was paramount to state's policy of protecting juvenile offenders and any embarrassment to witness). The trial judge denied defense counsel's request to cross-examine Goodwine based on her erroneous belief that the foundational requirement had not been met. More precisely, the trial judge found it difficult to believe that the discrimination suit brought by appellant against Goodwine's employer would have given Goodwine the motive to perjure himself about the sale of the gun to Coles. The majority also seems to believe that Coles's suit against the Navy was marginal because it provided a very unpersuasive motive indeed for helping to frame a man for armed robbery by fabricating a five-year-old sale of a handgun. See ante at 490-91. They miss two crucial points, one of perspective and another of degree. The relevant question is not whether the judge believes Goodwine had sufficient reason to fabricate an outright untruth in testifying that he sold the gun used in the armed robbery to Coles, but whether Goodwine's evident animus against Coles should have been revealed to the jury so that it could consider whether the relationship between a party and a witness ... might lead the witness to slant, unconsciously or otherwise, his testimony in favor of or against a party. Guzman, 769 A.2d at 791 (quoting United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 52, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984)). There was no requirement for defense counsel to prove the proffered bias was of a magnitude which would cause Goodwine to assist in framing appellant. Nor was there even the need to doubt that Goodwine sold a gun to appellant at some time while they worked together for the Marine Corps. But with the knowledge that Goodwine held a bias against appellant for bringing a lawsuit against his employer which Goodwine felt had a deleterious effect on the morale of [his] section, a reasonable jury might have more carefully scrutinized the veracity of Goodwine's statement that he could identify the weapon used in the armed robbery as the gun he sold Coles several years earlier because he remembered its serial number. The exposure of bias may be a crucial determinant in the jury's assessment of the trust-worthiness of a witness. Clayborne, 751 A.2d at 962 (internal quotation and citations omitted). It is not for us to speculate as to whether the jury would have accepted appellant's line of reasoning had defense counsel been permitted to fully present it; rather, the jurors were entitled to have the benefit of the defense theory before them so that they could make an informed judgment as to the weight to place on [the witness's] testimony. Davis, 415 U.S. at 317, 94 S.Ct. 1105. b. Abuse of Discretion Even putting aside the sufficiency of Coles's proffer, the trial judge erred in not allowing the requested cross-examination because her decision was primarily based upon consideration of an irrelevant and improper factor. Defense counsel proffered that, in January of 1999, appellant had filed a discrimination claim against his former employer (for whom Goodwine still worked), and had produced an affidavit that Goodwine had signed in January 2000the same year he testified in this casein relation to that employment discrimination claim. At a bench conference, the trial judge erroneously focused on the date of Goodwine's affidavit in relation to the alleged sale of the gun. [1] The fact that Goodwine may have sold the gun to appellant five years or more before Coles filed the action against the Navy had no bearing on whether Goodwine held a bias against appellant for initiating that civil action at the time Goodwine testified against him in the criminal trial. To be the proper subject of inquiry, an incident giving rise to bias need only precede the testimony given by the person who is allegedly biased. See Best v. United States, 328 A.2d 378, 381 (D.C.1974). The closer the temporal relationship between the incident giving rise to bias and the trial, the more probative. The majority does not acknowledge that the trial judge incorrectly analyzed the proffer by focusing on the temporal relationship between the witness's purported sale of the gun five years before his testimony at the criminal trial, a relationship that was irrelevant to appellant's proffer that the same year that Goodwine testified against Coles in the criminal trial he also swore in an affidavit that Coles had a deleterious effect on the morale of the section of the Navy of which Goodwine was a part. Thus, the trial court erred because it failed to consider a relevant factor, and relied upon an improper factor. See Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 365 (D.C.1979). [2] Failing to grasp the relevance of the proffer, the trial judge was more concerned over trying a collateral matter, even though there was no exploration of what the scope of questioning on the matter would need to be. The majority supplies its own rationale for the trial judge's concern about trying collateral matters, stating that if the cross-examination had been allowed, the government would have had the right to rehabilitate Goodwine by attempting to show that his comments about Coles were accurate and justified and did not reflect bias against Coles. See ante at 491. This confuses impeachment with proof of untrue statements with impeachment for bias. Where impeachment is for bias, it makes absolutely no difference whether Coles's action against his former employer genuinely undermined the morale of Goodwine's fellow workers. In evaluating the possibility of bias, it is the witness's subjective belief which is central to the issue, since it is this belief that can produce bias. Scull, 564 A.2d at 1165. Thus, the only pertinent consideration was whether, at the time Goodwine gave his testimony, he subjectively thought Coles had harmed his work unit, regardless of whether Goodwine was justified in feeling that way. No doubt the government would have had a right to probe the depth of Goodwine's resentment against Coles, as in every case in which bias is raised. But there is no record basis for the majority's concern that cross-examination for bias would have diverted the jury's attention into the merits of the employment discrimination claim, or its actual effect on Goodwine's work unit. The majority also justifies the trial judge's exclusion of cross-examination on the ground that allegations of unlawful discrimination tend to capture one's attention, and the proposed cross-examination would have had a significant potential for distracting of the jury. See ante at 491. Even assuming this is so, it would not be a sufficient reason to preclude bias cross-examination altogether (as opposed to reasonably limiting the government's re-direct). I note that it is precisely because allegations of discrimination are noteworthy that it is reasonable to think that the jury could well have believed, as counsel proffered, that Coles's discrimination lawsuit captured the attention of Goodwine and his fellow workers. In sum, the proffer of bias in this case was sufficient to require the trial court, absent a showing of serious prejudice, to allow cross-examination on the issue of Goodwine's documented resentment towards Coles. An exercise of judicial discretion, however broad, will be reversed if it appears that it was exercised on grounds, or for reasons, clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Johnson, 398 A.2d at 363 (quoting Bringhurst v. Harkins, 122 A. 783, 787 (Del. 1923)). I thus conclude that the trial court erred in excluding the bias cross-examination of Kurt Goodwine.