Opinion ID: 171021
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presentation of Evidence at Trial

Text: Leading up to the testimony in question, the prosecutor had asked Jessica about her father's reaction to her mother's leaving, his threats to harm Owens and her mother, whether she had heard explosions at her house in 2003, the type of mechanical work her father did, and whether he had experimented with explosives. On several occasions, when Jessica's answer was inconsistent with her grand-jury testimony, the prosecutor reminded her of that testimony, and she sometimes modified her answer. The following exchange then took place: Q. Okay. And then also at the grand jury you deny knowing who mailed the bomb; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And then later on, you gave a statement stating that you had mailed the bomb or notexcuse me, I'm sorry, I misspoke. You gave a statement that you drove Shawn Caraway to the post office and he mailed the bomb at the post office. Do you remember that? A. Yes, I made that statement. R. Vol. 5 at 422. Jessica explained that she had felt pressured by her mother and Owens to make the statement and that she had wanted investigators to leave her alone because she was seven-months pregnant. The prosecutor then gave her the written statement to review. He asked her to familiarize herself with it, to confirm that it was written in her own hand, and to confirm that it was prefaced with language stating that she had made the statement of [her] own free will and accord, without coercion, threat, or promise of reward. Id. at 424 (internal quotation marks omitted). At that point, defense counsel objected that the prosecutor's questions were leading. The court overruled the objection. The prosecutor then asked, Did you drive Shawn Caraway to the Wamego post office? and Jessica answered, No, I did not. Id. at 425. The prosecutor again asked if the statement said that it was made without coercion and if it was written in her own hand. Jessica again offered an explanation for giving the statement and said that she had lied in giving it. The prosecutor read the statement line by line, asking Jessica to confirm or refute each sentence in it. She said that it was all a lie. After an interlude in which the prosecutor pursued an unrelated line of questioning, the prosecutor moved to admit Government Exhibit 12, Jessica's written statement to the postal inspectors on November 2, 2006. Defense counsel objected: The statement, of course, is technically and clearly hearsay. She has admitted every line in it. To admit it and give it to a juryto the jury would be prejudicial. She's explained it, she's talked about it. And I think under Rule 403 it's far more prejudicial than it is probative, especially since she's gone through every line and explained every one already and the jury has heard it. To have this go into the jury room serves no purpose, other than to bring contrary testimony into the jury. Id. at 432. The prosecutor responded, As far as prejudice goes, any damage is already done because it's been read in open court. Id. at 433. He added, And to feel better, we can give a limiting instruction stating that it can be offered for impeachment. Id. To this, defense counsel objected that it was not impeachment. The court then admitted the written statement. After Jessica's testimony, the government called Postal Inspector Paul Mezzanotte, who had taken Jessica's statement. He testified that he had administered an oath to Jessica before taking her statement and that she had not appeared to be under the influence of any coercion, threat, or promise. He said that she had been a little upset but polite and that she had not hesitated in making the statement that she drove Shawn to the post office. Mezzanotte testified that after giving the statement, Jessica had met her mother and Owens outside and had given them both hugs. In closing argument the prosecutor addressed the credibility of Shawn's testimony. He asked them to consider whether Shawn appeared to be lying on the stand and to take into account that Shawn's motive for initially lying about mailing the bomb was to protect himself and his sister. The prosecutor suggested that Shawn's story had always been consistent on its most important detailthat he had seen the device at his house. He also urged the jury to consider whether Shawn's story was corroborated, and he said that it was in several respects: Shawn's description and diagram of the bomb matched the actual bomb, the types of materials found in the house supported Shawn's assertion that the bomb was made in the house, and Jessica's testimony about the threats and hearing explosions matched Shawn's. He continued: Also, before she denied it on the stand, Jessica Caraway corroborated his statement to the postal inspectors that he mailed it because, remember, Jessica Caraway had made a statement saying that she drove Shawn to the Wamego post office before she denied it on the stand. Id. Vol. 8 at 659-60. This was a substantive use of Jessica's prior inconsistent statement; it was not being used just to impugn her veracity when testifying that she did not drive Shawn to the post office. At the close of trial the court gave the jury the following instruction: You have heard evidence that before this trial certain witnesses made statements that may be different from his or her testimony in court. This is known as impeachment with a prior inconsistent statement. These earlier statements were brought to your attention only to help you decide how believable the testimony in this trial was. You cannot use the earlier statements as proof of anything else. You can only use them as one way of evaluating the testimony here in court. Exhibit 12 and Exhibit C-4 are examples of earlier statements introduced as prior inconsistent statements. Id. Vol. 1, Doc. 59, Instr. No. 33. Exhibit 12 was Jessica's written statement.