Opinion ID: 613009
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Turner's Testimony Was More Than a Confirmation

Text: The third Daye factor precludes the admission of a prior inconsistent statement made to a grand jury if it is the statement of the interrogator rather than the statement of the witness. Daye, 393 Mass. at 75, 469 N.E.2d at 496. [A] judge should exercise discretion in admitting a witness's `yes' or `no' answer to a leading, fact-filled question posed at the grand jury proceeding as probative evidence regarding the facts alluded to in the question. Id. at 74, 469 N.E.2d at 495. Wright claims that his trial counsel's performance was deficient because he did not specifically argue that Turner's testimony was a mere confirmation of a statement made by the Assistant District Attorney (ADA). [6] Turner's grand jury testimony began with the ADA eliciting from Turner his name, address, that he had known Wright for several years, and that he had spoken with Wright on the phone on May 14, the day of the murder. The ADA then showed Turner his police statement, had him identify it by his signature, and then read it into the record. The ADA asked no leading or fact-filled questions. Before and after she read Turner's statement into the record, she told Turner that he could change, add, correct or delete anything. Turner did not change anything. Instead, he affirmed the truth of the statement. We have no trouble concluding on these facts that Turner's grand jury testimony was his own statement and not a mere confirmation of a statement made by the ADA. Trial counsel's failure to argue against the admission of Turner's testimony based specifically on the third Daye factor was thus not deficient performance under Strickland. See Tevlin, 621 F.3d at 66.