Opinion ID: 311783
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: 2 The only issue now considered is the possible misrepresentation of the government to the court and to the jury concerning the result of plea bargaining with a co-conspirator who testified as a witness for the prosecution. Other errors raised on appeal, if meritorious, are cured by the remand for a new trial and, therefore, are not considered here. 3 A key witness for the prosecution in the trial of Dennis E. Smith was Kenneth Wayne Smiddy, an alleged co-conspirator with Smith. A brief history of the interaction between Smiddy and the prosecution is essential for a full understanding of the facts with which this court is faced. 4 Smiddy, the alleged co-conspirator, was arraigned May 8, 1972, and counsel present were George A. Kokus for the government, and Daniel J. Tribell for Kenneth Wayne Smiddy. Neither the defendant Dennis E. Smith nor his counsel was present. Smiddy entered a plea of guilty after the district judge had ascertained that Smiddy had a full understanding of the proceedings and it was by his own will that he so pleaded. 5 During that arraignment the court stated that as a result of plea bargaining the government was recommending a sentence of not more than two years. Smiddy's attorney then informed the court that the United States Attorney had agreed that if Smiddy were cooperative in all respects regarding the government's upcoming case against Dennis E. Smith, the government would have no objection to probation. 1 6  7   Smiddy's arraignment transcript was not filed until November 14, 1972. Dennis E. Smith's trial was the previous June. The attorney for Dennis E. Smith was not aware that any deal had been made between the government and Smiddy until the government mentioned it four days prior to the trial of Smith. Even then neither Smith's attorney nor the trial court 2 was aware of all that was involved in that deal. Neither knew of the government's promise not to object to probation and they were never informed of this fact by the government prosecutor who did know. 8 The trial of Dennis E. Smith began in June of 1972, and Kenneth Wayne Smiddy was called as a witness for the government on June 21st. During direct examination of Kenneth Wayne Smiddy by the government prosecutor, Smiddy stated that the only deal he had with the government was that in return for a guilty plea he would only get two years in prison. 3 On direct examination then it was never mentioned that the government had promised not to oppose probation if Smiddy willingly cooperated and testified at Dennis Smith's trial. 9 On cross-examination of Smiddy by the defendant's counsel, Smiddy stated that he would have testified with or without the deal. The defense asked no other questions of Smiddy and never learned all that was involved in this plea bargain. 10 During final argument to the jury at the trial below the attorney for the defendant, in referring to the credibility of the witness Smiddy, pointed to the government's bargain with Smiddy involving only two years in prison. 4 It should be remembered that neither the defendant's counsel nor the district judge had any knowledge of the government's promise not to oppose probation. The prosecution, on rebuttal, attempted to re-establish the credibility of his witness, Smiddy, by stating: 11 Wayne Smiddy and Troy Kivett made a deal with the Government. It was for two years in a federal penitentiary. That is a fantastic deal, ladies and gentlemen. Troy Kivett pleaded guilty to one count which he can serve up to five years in a federal penitentiary. Is that a great deal? (Emphasis added). 12 This statement, although partially true, was not the whole truth and, in fact, the sentence It was for two years in a federal penitentiary was such an affirmative misrepresentation as to make it, as used, absolutely false. The prosecutor who made this statement was the only party at the trial who had knowledge of the entire bargain. 13 The proof of the pudding is, however, in the eating. On August 16, 1972, Smiddy was given a sentencing hearing before the district judge who originally arraigned him. He was sentenced to two years; however, that sentence was deferred and he was placed on probation. During that hearing, the court stated to Smiddy: 14 I am giving you a break now. I am inclined to send you to the penitentiary, but in view of the fact that you did testify for the Government and cooperated and all that sort of thing I am giving you a break. . . . . 15 It should be noted that the government attorney present was quick to point out to the court Smiddy's aid in convicting Dennis E. Smith, stating: 16 . . . Mr. Smiddy testified in behalf of the Government and the defendants in the other case were convicted. During the trial in front of Judge Choate his cooperation was extensive and his testimony was very valuable. 17 The government then was performing its part of the bargain with Smiddy by doing all it could to ensure he received probation and not two years in prison. The fact that this was an important part of the agreement between Smiddy and the government was never made known at the trial of Dennis E. Smith. 18 The government might contend it made somewhat of an attempt to apprise the court and defense counsel of what had transpired at Smiddy's arraignment hearing. 5 An examination of the trial transcript shows, however, that any disclosure made was not a full disclosure, and, therefore, falls short of the duty of the prosecutor to comply with the rudimentary demands of justice. Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 79 L.Ed. 791 (1935); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). 19 The facts of this case then demand that Dennis E. Smith receive a new trial.