Opinion ID: 2325528
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The March 13 Threat.

Text: During the CPO hearing, appellant cross-examined Parker about her failure to appear in court for his initially scheduled trial regarding the alleged March 11 assault. Parker explained that she did not appear because [she] didn't know that [she] was supposed to come. Appellant also asked Parker, [i]sn't it a fact that you . . . called [my attorney] . . . to find out . . . the situation with me[?] Appellant posed this question as part of a compound question, and Parker responded to a portion of the question without saying whether she had telephoned appellant's lawyer. During his immunized testimony, appellant testified that Parker failed to show up for his earlier scheduled trial because she wanted [them] to get back together. Appellant also said that Parker constantly called his lawyer to inquire about the status of [their] relationship. Appellant testified that the case was eventually dismissed because [Parker] didn't want to pursue [the charges] because after a while she felt that . . . she was wrong and . . . shouldn't have had [him] locked up. Subsequently, at trial, Parker testified that on March 13, 2000, appellant called her at home and stated, Bitch, if I go to jail, I am going to fuck you up. Parker testified that after she received this phone call, she called appellant's attorney. She didn't tell [the] lawyer that [appellant had] threatened [her], but she was scared, so she told his lawyer that she was not going to press charges. She further testified that she did not show up for the trial because she never received the subpoena that was sent to her, and that [t]here is another gentleman in my building, his last name is Parker and we get each other's mail sometimes. She said she would have gone to court if she had known when the trial was going to be held. In response to a question asking for clarification, Parker stated that she did not show up because she was afraid of [appellant], but that if she had received the subpoena, she would have gone because she wouldn't have [had] any other choice. Appellant asserts that this trial testimony was the first time Parker linked her failure to appear for his trial to a threat, and that the threat allegation and the additional details that Parker offered for her failure to come to court were affected by his immunized testimony about her failure to appear and about her call to his lawyer out of a desire to resume their relationship after the March incident. But, as described above, it was appellant's (non-immunized) cross-examination questions about Parker's not appearing in court and calling his lawyer that drew Parker's attention to these subjects. [27] In addition, at the Kastigar hearing, the government presented evidence that Parker told Smith-McGuire about the March 13 threat before the CPO hearing. The government introduced a sworn statement signed by Smith-McGuire on September 12, 2000, that described threats appellant had made to Parker on both March 13 and September 9, 2000. The statement indicated that appellant had telephoned Parker on March 13, 2000, and told her that if he went to jail, he would fuck her up. In light of the foregoing, we are satisfied that the government met its burden of proving an independent derivation of the trial testimony it presented about the March 13 threat.