Opinion ID: 2338759
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: bishop's invocation of the privilege

Text: At the beginning of the trial, during jury selection, Littlejohn's attorney told the members of the venire that he might call Leonard Bishop, aged about 20-25, as a defense witness. He stated that Bishop lived on 46th Place, S.E. Soon thereafter, in his opening statement, the defense attorney told the jury that you will hear from a gentleman who was with Mr. Littlejohn. He didn't see Mr. Littlejohn put a gun into his waistband, and he didn't see Mr. Littlejohn with a gun that evening. After he had denied Littlejohn's MJOA, the judge inquired regarding the defense case. Littlejohn's attorney announced that his first witness would be Leonard Bishop, and the judge asked what counsel expected Bishop's testimony to be. Counsel responded that Bishop would in essence say, your honor, that Mr. Littlejohn was out in the circle that evening and he did not have a gun. The judge asked the prosecutor whether the government had anything that could conceivably tie Mr. Bishop to any criminal activity including the gun charge in this case. The prosecutor responded: No. That's my preliminary answer. [5] The matter was deferred, however, until the court could hear from Bishop and Bishop's attorney, Anthony Matthews, Esquire. When the case was re-called, Mr. Matthews advised the court that Bishop had been charged with a murder which took place in the 600 block of 46th Place, S.E. on November 25, 1994, a year and a half after the present case arose. The judge commented that I don't see a Fifth Amendment problem based upon that at all. That's for sure. Bishop's attorney stated, however, that the problem is it puts Mr. Bishop in that area and it suggests that he hangs out on the scene. According to Mr. Matthews, the government would attempt to prove at Bishop's forthcoming trial that Mr. Bishop is part of something called `Simple City Crew,' a crew that deals drugs. He explained that he did not want any testimony by Bishop to help the government to hook my client up with some crew who deals drugs there.... The trial judge stated that he could see a possible concern if it's the defense position that Mr. Bishop never is in the vicinity of the 600 block of 46th Place, S.E. The judge asked the prosecutor whether she wished to say anything about the general nature of her proposed cross-examination of Bishop if Bishop took the stand. The prosecutor stated that I'm going to probe primarily for issues of bias, but I'm not going to, at this juncture, promise not to ask him about things like how long he was out there that night, what he was doing that night. She also expected to ask Bishop how he knew Littlejohn and for how long he had known him. Littlejohn's attorney asked the judge to restrict the government's cross-examination to events that happened after 10 p.m. on May 3, 1993. The judge declined to do so, noting that the prosecutor had the right to explore the question whether Mr. Bishop has any bias or prejudice in favor of Mr. Littlejohn. Bishop, who was in custody, was brought to the courtroom. The judge carefully explained Bishop's rights to him, and he invited Bishop to discuss his options with his attorney. Bishop twice asked for more time to consider his decision, and the judge granted each request. Finally, Bishop stated: All right. Gee, I'll take the Fifth. The judge then immediately delivered his ruling: I don't think that there is any sort of testimony that Mr. Bishop could give that would not implicate his Fifth Amendment right so I don't think this has to be done on a question by question basis. [6] Mr. Bishop has chosen to assert his Fifth Amendment right not to testify. I find for the reasons given earlier on that he does have a Fifth Amendment right in view of the pending murder case, and anything that he might say in this case would implicate and hurt him in that case because it would tie him to the 600 block of 46th Place, Southeast, where the gun charge in this case arose and the pending murder case arose. So at this point he can step out with the marshal. Littlejohn's attorney invited the judge's attention to the fact that Bishop had been convicted of a drug offense that was incurred in the same neighborhood a short time after Littlejohn's arrest. [7] The judge responded, without elaboration, that [t]hat doesn't change my decision. [8] In light of the judge's ruling, the defense was unable to call Bishop as a witness. Littlejohn decided not to take the stand, and the defense rested without presenting any evidence. The jury convicted Littlejohn of all three charges against him. Littlejohn's trial counsel filed a comprehensive written motion for a new trial, which the court denied. Littlejohn was duly sentenced, and this appeal followed.