Opinion ID: 3009671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: He didn't promise me he'd go back in and

Text: talk to the Judge and tell him I cooperated. Was nothing promised to me. Q. And that's the truth? A. Yes. Only thing was promised to me was I'd be taken care of. On redirect by the prosecutor, Shark emphasized he had been promised protective custody in exchange for his testimony: Q. Mr. Shark, earlier during your cross- examination, in response to one of [defense attorney's] questions about what you were promised, you said something along the line that you would be taken care of. What does that mean? A. Protective custody. . . . Q. And what does that mean to you? A. Means a lot to me. Q. Why? A. Behind the fact what's going on here, word can get back to the jail, you know, that I did something that, you know, is against rules and regulations inside the jail and I can be seriously hurt for doing something like this. Shark never acknowledged the prosecutor had agreed to inform the sentencing judge of his cooperation, and the 7 prosecutor failed to correct his perjured testimony. The defense attorney revived the issue in his closing statement by referring to the prosecutor's promise to speak to the sentencing judge. He stated: You recall [Shark] saying from this witness stand, I just want to get the truth out? What else did he say? Unconsciously he said, I want to help myself. Then I asked him -- this is the man who now wants to tell the truth -- I said, Did the Prosecutor promise you anything? I'm sure you will recall, ladies and gentlemen, that when the Prosecutor made his opening remarks, he indicated, and stated truthfully to you, that he had made certain promises to this defendant. On this witness stand -- a man who's worried about his survival is not going to forget something like that, if any promises were made to help him, but on this witness stand, after taking the oath on that Bible, I asked him, Were any promises made to you? No. Did the Prosecutor promise that he'd talk to the Judge on your behalf? No. No promises made. That's what he said. And if you'll recall, ladies and gentlemen, we took a recess, and when we came back, I asked him, I said, Did the Prosecutor promise you immunity? What did he say -- Oh, yes, he did promise me immunity. . . . You heard him yesterday say in response to my question that, I was mentioning 60 years to myself, ladies and gentlemen, if you face that kind of time and you can buy your way out, do it. He did it. He got up on that witness stand and said to all of you, I perjured myself, I'm a liar, Fine. To help himself. Do you think that that young man, streetwise, wouldn't have certain ideas about what it means if a Prosecutor said, I will speak to the Judge for you? Ladies and gentlemen, he was sinking. And it was up to his nose and he reached out and he grabbed 8 that straw of immunity to try to save himself. That's what he did. And I suggest to you that you cannot believe him. You can't believe anything that he said. . . . He said on that witness stand that the very first day when he was arrested he was concerned about getting himself out of this. He said on the witness stand yesterday that he was trying to help himself, and in order to do his job, he even said, Nothing was promised to me, and either he thought better of it or felt that he would be entrapped and then suddenly he admitted what was promised to him. And the Prosecutor would say to you, Yes, I did promise him I'd speak to the Judge, but, ladies and gentlemen, the Judge is independent, the Judge makes up his own mind and, you know, that's true. Sentencing is for the Judge. The Prosecutor can't tell the Judge what to say. But, ladies and gentlemen, don't you think some little weasel who's trying to save himself will take those words and, because he is so desperate, make those words say things that they really did not say, that maybe, maybe, this is a chance for me to get out of this, . . . (Emphasis added.) In his closing statement, the prosecutor referred to Shark's sentencing and protective custody: Yes, the State called him as a witness but what did Melvin Shark expect? I opened to you and told you certain things were promised to him, yes. What [was] his deal? His big deal? His lawyer was present when we discussed it. And he explained his answers. . . . I know that the Judge can sentence me and I know the Prosecutor doesn't have any power over the Judge because the jury found me guilty. No plea bargaining. Jury verdict, guilty. So the Prosecutor does not have the power to recommend anything to the Judge anymore in terms of years, months, days. So what did he testify for? And this is where it's coming out now: Well, what did he say was facing him over there in the code, a different code, not the code we live by 9 here, but in the jail here: Subjected to some physical beatings if the word gets out. So what did he want from the State? I want protective custody. I'm subject to being severely beaten if I testify against another defendant. (Emphasis added.)0 In his final instructions to the jury, the trial judge referred only to the immunity part of the agreement and reminded the jury the opening and closing statements were not evidence. As we have noted, however, the prosecutor, in his opening statement, acknowledged he had promised to speak to the sentencing judge on 0 At Shark's sentencing hearing, the prosecutor asked for leniency for Shark and stressed the critical importance of Shark's testimony in obtaining Robinson's conviction: Mr. Shark was told by me in all candor that I would speak for him in this respect at his sentence, that your Honor would note his cooperation in testifying against his co- defendant and co-defendants. . . . [W]ithout his testimony, proving the case against his codefendant [Robinson] would have been difficult, if not impossible . . . . . . He should be punished and he will be punished . . . , but his cooperation in both the trials [of co-defendants] has to be noted because we would have not had the opportunity to convict the person who actually pulled the trigger . . . Maurice Robinson; without the help of Melvin Shark, albeit to help himself, but in exchange for nothing really concrete, Mr. Shark did testify, and I think that should be noted to the court. As we have noted, Robinson and Shark were found guilty of the same offenses; however, Robinson was given a longer sentence. For the murder, he received a 30 year term with a 15 year mandatory minimum, whereas Shark received a 20 year term with a 10 year mandatory minimum. Robinson's concurrent term for armed robbery was also longer than Shark's. 10 Shark's behalf, and the defense attorney, in his closing argument, built on that acknowledgement. Therefore, the jury was made aware of the terms of the agreement and the defense attorney made a strong case for Shark's lack of credibility based on the agreement and Shark's conflicting testimony.