Opinion ID: 48706
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eliciting Inadmissible Evidence

Text: 187 Fields argues, first, that the prosecutors committed misconduct by taking advantage of Fields's pro se status and repeatedly soliciting evidence of prior bad acts. See FED.R.EVID. 404(b) (Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.). 188 As an initial matter, we have some difficulty with the allegation that the Government took advantage of Fields. While it is true that the prosecutor is an officer of the court, ours ultimately is an adversarial system. As such, it is the defendant's attorney, not the prosecutor, who primarily is charged with protecting the defendant's rights. That is why courts universally recognize that representing oneself in criminal proceedings is foolish[], Mayberry v. Pennsylvania, 400 U.S. 455, 463, 91 S.Ct. 499, 27 L.Ed.2d 532 (1971), which in turn is why defendants must be advised of the dangers of self-representation before they can validly waive counsel, see Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 189 Where those dangers have been hazarded voluntarily, [w]e reject the notion that the prosecutor . . . must abide by some special rules . . . . See State v. Hoff, 31 Wash.App. 809, 812, 644 P.2d 763 (1982). Having waived his right to counsel, Fields cannot now demand that the prosecutors should have effectively served as his lawyers by ensuring that there was no valid objection to their own evidence. See id. Thus, without affording Fields's misconduct claim any special treatment because he represented himself, we turn to its merits. 190 The incident highlighted by Fields is the Government's redirect examination of Kevin Burton, who testified that Fields had bragged to him about killing the victim. The Government elicited that Fields was known to shoot people and had tried to rob Burton. On re-redirect, the Government continued with the theme—eliciting that Fields was a dangerous person known for shooting and robbing crack dealers. Ultimately, the Government drew an objection from Fields, which was sustained. The court subsequently gave a curative instruction. 191 Fields argues that the Government's actions in examining Burton amount not only to an evidentiary violation but to prosecutorial misconduct. Viewing the Government's redirect examinations in context, we disagree. On cross-examination of Burton, Fields appeared to suggest that Burton had recently fabricated Fields's supposed confession. He asked Burton why he failed to report Fields's admission until well after it occurred. The Government's proffer of Fields's attempted robbery of Burton was used to support Burton's response; according to Burton, he did not come forward earlier because he was afraid of Fields. Fields's prior violent conduct toward Burton established that this was a plausible explanation. Prior misconduct is only inadmissible under Rule 404(b) if used for character propensity purposes. Thus, the Government's initial redirect was proper. 192 The court did sustain an evidentiary objection on re-redirect as the Government continued to elicit more misconduct evidence. However, the foregoing establishes that the Government had a reasonable basis for pursuing evidence that Fields had committed violent acts, and the court gave curative instructions after sustaining the objection. Under the circumstances, any marginal improper questioning of Burton falls woefully below the severity of what would be required to reverse Fields's conviction. 40