Opinion ID: 1098032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Proceeding Regarding a Witness Held Outside the Defendant's Presence

Text: In this point on appeal, Muhammad claims that the trial court erred in conducting a hearing regarding a prospective witness out of his presence. Before giving his testimony, Aftab Katia, the manager of the convenience store, requested a meeting with the trial judge outside the presence of the defendant and jury. Without objection, the trial judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel met with Katia in chambers. These proceedings were transcribed for the record. Katia stated that he was afraid to testify because he had received a written message warning him not to be a witness, and an unidentified person told his nephew to tell Katia to be careful. The trial judge told Katia that the defendant is in jail, he cannot do anything to you. The judge also stated that he understood Katia's concern, but added: If it was that easy ... to prevent people from testifying, it would be happening all of the time[,] we would never have any trials and ... we would never have justice.... [T]he law says that if you are subpoenaed to testify and you are a witness in a case, you need to take the witness stand. . . . . ... [I]t does not mean that I do not take [the threats] seriously, but this is a very serious case, very serious case, and what is important is that the jury knows as much as they can know about this case and that is the whole purpose of the trial is to get to the truth whatever that truth is and whether the truth is that the man is guilty or the man is not guilty. That is the whole purpose of the trial and that protects us all. If you and others who are threatened do not testify, none of us would be protected and we'll have terrorists out there and eventually they will take over the states because they know that all they have to do is make a threat and they could stop everything. The trial judge also pointed out that Katia was under subpoena and that law enforcement agencies could make arrangements to protect him and his family. The prosecutor stated that if the witness decided not to testify the other alternative would be jail. The trial judge responded that he hoped that would not happen because jail is a dangerous environment ... and you will be depressed because you won't be around your family to protect them because you would be locked up. And they would be deprived of the ability to be protected. The trial judge also stated that he did not know yet whether or not Muhammad was guilty, but if he was in fact guilty and went free because Katia refused to testify: [Y]ou might be in bigger trouble because he would be out there with you and I want you to think about that. Of course, I don't know. I don't know if he is guilty or not guilty. I don't know what the evidence is yet. I have not heard all of the evidence yet so I don't know if he is guilty or not in this case but the Law requires you as a citizen here to take the witness stand and tell the truth. You have to tell the truth and that is only the right thing to do for all of us and that is what the system obligates you to do. Muhammad claims that the proceeding held outside of his presence violated his due process right to be present during critical stages of the criminal proceedings and his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. At the outset, the State argues that these arguments are not cognizable on appeal because the defendant did not raise a contemporaneous objection at trial. Thus, we examine this claim to determine if fundamental error occurred. As to the merits of Muhammad's claim, we first turn to whether this proceeding outside of the defendant's presence violated his constitutional right to be present. The constitutional right to be present is rooted to a large extent in the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985). However, the right of presence is protected to some extent by the Due Process Clause where the defendant is not actually confronting witnesses or the evidence against him. Id. A defendant has a due process right to be present at any stage of the proceeding that is critical to its outcome, if his presence would contribute to the fairness of the proceedings. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987); Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla.1982). Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 296 (Fla. 1993). Thus, a criminal defendant has the due process right to be present at proceedings whenever his presence has a relation, reasonably substantial, to the fulness of his opportunity to defend against the charge.... [T]he presence of a defendant is a condition of due process to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by this absence, and to that extent only. United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 526, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985) (quoting Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. at 105-06, 54 S.Ct. 330). When a defendant is excluded from a portion of the trial proceeding without objection, the inquiry centers on whether, in light of the whole record, the fairness of the proceeding was frustrated by the defendant's absence. See Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953, 962 (Fla.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 936, 118 S.Ct. 345, 139 L.Ed.2d 267 (1997); Rose v. State, 617 So.2d 291, 296 (Fla.1993). Federal courts have recognized that the residual powers of the courts to ensure the safety of witnesses and jurors encompasses interviewing a witness outside the defendant's presence concerning threats made by the defendant. See United States v. Adams, 785 F.2d 917, 920 (11th Cir.1986); see also LaChappelle v. Moran, 699 F.2d 560, 564 (1st Cir.1983). Although ex parte conferences should rarely be conducted, the witness may not feel free to discuss any threats in the presence of the defendant or even counsel for defendant. Adams, 785 F.2d at 920. We agree that under certain narrow circumstances, the independent interest of the judiciary in ensuring the integrity of trials or the safety of witnesses or jurors may justify limited proceedings held out of the presence of the defendant, as long as certain procedural safeguards are in place. In this case, the conference was not ex parte. Defense counsel was present and did not object to the procedure used by the trial court. Now, Muhammad belatedly asserts that his presence would have assisted the presentation of his defense because he could have told counsel and Katia that he had not initiated any threats. However, during the proceedings, Katia did not discuss his substantive testimony and the trial court made no rulings. See Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987); Adams, 785 F.2d at 920. We find additional procedural protection from the fact that counsel was present and the proceeding was fully transcribed. See Adams, 785 F.2d at 920; LaChappelle, 699 F.2d at 567. Thus, we conclude that the absence of the defendant at this in camera proceeding did not frustrate the fairness of the trial or constitute fundamental error under these circumstances. We turn to Muhammad's next claim that during this proceeding, the trial judge strayed from the role of impartiality and coerced a prosecution witness into giving testimony favorable to the state. In Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the defendant's right to due process had been violated when the trial judge sua sponte informed the defendant's only witness that he did not have to testify, and that if the witness lied under oath the judge would personally see that the witness was indicted for perjury. Now you have been called down as a witness in this case by the Defendant. It is the Court's duty to admonish you that you don't have to testify, that anything you say can and will be used against you. If you take the witness stand and lie under oath, the Court will personally see that your case goes to the grand jury and you will be indicted for perjury and the likelihood ( sic ) is that you would get convicted of perjury and that it would be stacked onto what you have already got, so that is the matter you have got to make up your mind on. If you get on the witness stand and lie, it is probably going to mean several years and at least more time that you are going to have to serve. It will also be held against you in the penitentiary when you're up for parole and the Court wants you to thoroughly understand the chances you're taking by getting on that witness stand under oath. You may tell the truth and if you do, that is all right, but if you lie you can get into real trouble. The court wants you to know that. You don't owe anybody anything to testify and it must be done freely and voluntarily and with the thorough understanding that you know the hazard you are taking. Webb, 409 U.S. at 95-96, 93 S.Ct. 351. The defense witness then refused to testify for any purpose. See id. at 96, 93 S.Ct. 351. The Supreme Court stated that the trial judge did not stop at warning the witness of his right to refuse to testify and of the necessity to tell the truth. Id. at 97, 93 S.Ct. 351. Instead, the unnecessarily strong terms used by the judge prevented the witness from freely choosing not to testify. Id. at 98, 93 S.Ct. 351. Similarly, Florida appellate courts have recognized that reversible error may occur when a trial judge threatens a witness with perjury charges during his or her testimony when the witness indicates he or she is changing previous testimony. See Reese v. State, 382 So.2d 141, 144 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); cf. Bell v. State, 479 So.2d 147 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). The Fourth District in Reese concluded that while the trial judge's remarks were not as forceful as in Webb, the remarks, when considered together with the immediate change in testimony by the witness, constituted prejudicial error: It is apparent that Ms. Footman believed that if she continued to testify contrary to her deposition testimony, she was going to be sent to jail. Being so convinced, she then contradicted the testimony she had given a few minutes earlier and affirmed her deposition testimony. Unfortunately, as with any witness whose memory is suddenly refreshed when confronted with the prospect of jail, one cannot be certain which version of the facts is indeed the truth. Reese, 382 So.2d at 144. The rationale of Reese is that if a witness is threatened with perjury charges in light of a prior inconsistent statement, the witness might be coerced to give the same testimony as that in the prior statement, not because it is the truth but because of judicial pressure from the threat of perjury charges. See id. The context in which the comments arose distinguishes this case from both Webb and Reese. In Webb, the trial court sua sponte warned the only defense witness that he did not have to testify, and that if he did testify untruthfully, the judge would see that the witness was prosecuted for perjury. Thereafter, the witness did not testify. Similarly in Reese, threats by the trial judge to prosecute the witness for perjury occurred during the witness's testimony, which thereafter changed to conform with the prior statement, casting doubt on the ultimate reliability of the witness's trial testimony. In contrast, in this case, the trial court's comments came in response to the witness's expressed concerns about testifying, and it was Katia who requested the meeting with the judge. The trial judge did not discuss the witness's substantive testimony. The trial judge emphasized that he did not know whether the defendant was guilty or innocent, and that he only wanted Katia to testify truthfully so that justice could be done. Finally, Katia's testimony at trial was essentially that he saw Muhammad come into the convenience store, ask Swanson, Where is the girl? and follow as Swanson ran away. Katia also testified that he had seen Muhammad in the store previously, though he did not know his name. Our review of the record reveals that the witness's testimony was consistent with the statements made to police prior to trial and also consistent with many other eyewitness accounts of the events. Based on the totality of the circumstances in this record, we do not find the trial court's comments amounted to fundamental error requiring reversal of the jury's verdict of guilt. Nevertheless, although we appreciate that the trial judge here was motivated by a desire to allay the witness's fears about testifying, we caution judges who are faced with a reluctant witness to avoid comments that resort to unnecessarily strong terms. Webb, 409 U.S. at 96, 93 S.Ct. 351. Faced with a recalcitrant witness who indicates a concern over testifying because of fear of safety or reprisal, the trial court could properly advise the witness of the legal consequences of the failure to testify. The trial court could explain that the witness is under subpoena and refusal to testify could subject the witness to being held in contempt of court, which could include the coercive sanction of incarceration. However, such reminders, if given, must be administered in a neutral and objective manner.