Opinion ID: 1940967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appellant's Challenge during Trial to Dr. Shaibani's Testimony

Text: Appellant contends that the trial court committed reversible error by failing to strike the testimony of the government's expert witness, Dr. Saami Shaibani, on the ground that he had committed perjury. At trial, defense counsel challenged Dr. Shaibani's stated affiliation with Temple University as having been fabricated. Counsel's cross-examination of Dr. Shaibani included the following: Q. In fact, isn't it true that according to the department of physics, you were not affiliated with that department at all? A. You're asking me to speculate. I don't know what the department of physics has said. I do know what the dean has said. And I have a letter to prove it. Q. And that was what year exactly? A. I can't tell you exactly. I've told you approximately. In fact, if you look at my CV, it might distinguish whether it's '92, '93, '94. But it's that kind of time frame. Q. And no one has ever raised the issue with you before concerning whether in fact you were affiliated with the department of physics at Temple University? A. It'sI'm constantly flagged on it by necessity. If I live in Virginia and I'm a professor in Pennsylvania, people are going to say that's a little unusual, isn't it, and I say yes, but this is how it works out. Q. And has anyone asked you under oath before if you were affiliated with the department of physics at Temple University? A. I'm sure they must have done it. My answer then is indeed, my answer now is, yes, I am. Because I have a letter from the dean saying so. Q. In what other cases have you testified? A. Excuse me? Q. What other cases have you testified under oath? You said that you testified in ten A. Approximately ten criminal cases and I think approximately thirty or so, twenty to thirty civil cases. So on average for the past twelve years or so, maybe two or three times a year. Q. Okay. And you use your association your affiliation with Temple University? A. I don't use it. I justif people ask me do I have that affiliation, my answer is yes. Q. In fact, on your resume you list an affiliation with Temple University? A. But not as my primary thing. In fact, the first thing on my resume is that I'm an independent consultant. Q. Your resume lists your affiliation with Temple University; is that right? A. Among other things, yes, ma'am. Q. And isn't it true, Dr. Shaibani, that thethat Temple University has absolutely no record of employment by you, either as a part-time, full-time, or any other kind of instructor there for the last fifteen years? A. That's correct. Because when I was appointed by the dean, it was an unpaid position. I was asked to promote the school through my academic and scholarly research. I was supported by grants from Temple University for a number of years. That hasn't happened particularly recently. But Temple University Medical School used to pay me to go all around the country to present results on behalf of Temple University. I taught people as someone associated with Temple University. Q. And how longwhat's the most recent grant funding that you received from Temple? A. It's been a number of years. I couldn't tell you when the grant funding ran out. It's certainly not current. Shortly after this exchange, defense counsel presented at the bench a letter dated September 27, 2001 (about three weeks before trial), from Dr. Edward Gawlinski, chairman of the physics department at Temple University, in support of her challenge to Dr. Shaibani's testimony. The court denied counsel's request to impeach Dr. Shaibani with the letter because it was hearsay. [35] According to counsel's proffer, Dr. Gawlinski stated in his letter that Dr. Shaibani had never been a clinical professor of physics at Temple as he claimed to be, and that no such title even existed at the school. The letter said that Shaibani possibly had been an adjunct professor at Temple for a period of one to two years sometime during the early 1990s, but according to Dr. Gawlinski, Temple had no documentation confirming this appointment. Dr. Gawlinski further declared that any claim by Mr. [ sic ] Shaibani that he is now a member of, or even affiliated with, the Temple University Department of Physics is fraudulent, noting that at least once a year [he had] to write this sort of letter. A couple of days later, the trial court delayed its decision on defense counsel's ex parte request to serve subpoenas on several faculty members at Temple University because Temple's general counsel was still investigating whether Dr. Shaibani's appointment had been renewed. The court also asked the government to produce the appointment letter. The following day, outside the presence of the jury, the court heard argument from both counsel on the question of his renewal, and concluded: It sounds to me like Temple has got different people who are talking different things, and they are all over the place with their designations and who says what ... and who communicates what, and what in the academic world is affiliated versus not affiliated. I think it's kind of loose. During its rebuttal case, the government, through Dr. Shaibani, was able to produce a formal letter of appointment issued by Temple (through Carolyn Adams, then the Dean of Temple's College of Arts and Sciences) to Dr. Shaibani, and countersigned by Dr. Shaibani, which was admitted into evidence. This letter established that in 1995 Dr. Shaibani had in fact been appointed to an unpaid three-year term as a Clinical Associate Professor in the Physics Department at Temple. The formal letter directly contradicted Dr. Gawlinski's letter, which had assure[d] defense counsel that the position did not exist. It was also undisputed that Dr. Shaibani fulfilled his responsibilities in that position through independent research, writing, and teaching (for which Temple received credit as part of Dr. Shaibani's biographical details), and that Dr. Shaibani's affiliation with Temple did not require him to teach classes at Temple or to perform research there. It was also undisputed that Dr. Shaibani had been a research fellow at Temple University Medical School (Conemaugh Hospital) for four years beginning in 1992. In the end, the only issue left unresolved was whether Dr. Shaibani's three-year appointment as a clinical professor at Temple had been renewed beyond August of 1998. Dr. Shaibani testified on direct examination during the government's rebuttal: Q. Now, was it renewed in any way, your clinical appointment there, with Temple? A. Yes, sir, it was. Q. How, in writing or orally? A. Orally from the dean's office, sir. Q. Did you ever get anything in writing from Temple thereafter that reiterated that reappointment? A. It was kind of a handshake, a gentlemen's agreement sort of thing. Q. Did you do anything to keep Temple informed of what you were up to? A. Oh, yes. Every year or every other year I would write to my dean and to my chairman explaining what research I had been conducting. I also mentioned that I had appeared in Newsweek magazine with my Temple affiliation reported there. That was last year. And it was wonderful to be able to fly the Temple flag, so to speak, because my affiliation with that school is something that I think we both benefit from. Q. I'm going to show counsel what's been marked for identification as Government's Exhibits 194, 195, and 196 and 197. Dr. Shaibani, I'm going to hand you Government's Exhibits 194, 195, 196, and 197. Can you tell us what those are as a class, please, as a group? A. These are copies of letters that I've written over the past several years to my dean and my chairman at Temple University, sir. Q. And do they relate at all to your previous answer that you wrote to them keeping them informed as [to] what you were doing? A. Yes, sir, either every year or every other year, depending on the type of research that I was undertaking at the time. Q. The most recent one of those is when? A. Both Exhibits 196 and 197 are as recent as last year, sir. Q. Did you do a letter like that this year to Temple? A. No, I've got into thefor the first several years I did it every year. Now that my position is essentially permanent, I'm doing it every other year. Q. Now, the copies that we marked as exhibits, do they bear your signature? A. No, sir, they're just my office copy, sir. Q. Were the originals sent to the folks to whom they were addressed? A. Yes, sir, both to my dean and my chairman. Q. Were they signed, the originals that you sent off? A. Yes, sir. Q. Are those copies something you kept as part of your business records? A. Just in the normal course of events, yes, sir. [THE PROSECUTOR]: Your Honor, I'd offer Exhibits 194, 195, 196, and 197 into evidence. THE COURT: Defense position? Same as before? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, Your Honor. THE COURT: They're admitted. Q. [by the prosecutor]: Doctor, after you sent the letters that you just testified about, did you hear anything back from either of the people to whom you addressed them, either orally or in writing? A. No, sir. I just imagined they put it in my file there. Q. Thank you. I'll retrieve those. When you sent those letters off, did you ever get the originals back as being undeliverable or anything like that? A. No, as I said, I just assumed they were put in my file there. Thereafter, on cross-examination, defense counsel thoroughly questioned Dr. Shaibani about his understanding of the renewal of his appointment: Q. In fact, under that letter your relationship with Temple expired in 1998; didn't it? A. In the first instance, yes, ma'am. Q. So in order to show a renewal of your appointment, you would need to get another letter; wouldn't you? A. No, ma'am. When I spoke to them, they said we've had such a good time for the first three years, let's just continue with the work and have done with it. Q. In fact, who was the they that you spoke to? A. It was a senior assistant in the dean's office. I believe it was a woman. I couldn't tell you her name. I initiated the renewal about ten months earlier. I wrote to my chairman in November of the previous year, ten months before the expiration the following year. And it just went backwards and forwards between the department and the college, the college and the department. In the end they said let's just continue. Q. And, in fact, in the end they didn't give you a renewal; isn't that right? A. No, I've just said the opposite. They renewed it permanently. Q. In fact, you have no letter of renewal or no letter of appointment from Dr. Gawlinsky in the physics department or dean of the college of arts and science? A. The dean's office told me THE COURT: Just a minute. The question is, do you have a letter from those individuals. That's not something you have to explain. THE WITNESS: Okay, sir, I don't have a letter. They told me verbally. Q. Well, Dr. Gawlinsky didn't tell you verbally, did he? A. He is only my chair. THE COURT: The question is, did he tell you verbally? THE WITNESS: Sorry, sir. THE COURT: Answer the specific question. A. No, Dr. Gawlinsky, as my chairman, didn't tell me. Q. And the dean of the college of arts and sciences did not tell you verbally; is that right? A. One of her senior assistants did, but not herself. Q. The dean of [the] college of arts and sciences did not tell you verbally or in writing that you had a renewal, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And only the dean of [the] college of arts and sentences [ sic ] can issue a renewal; is that right? A. The dean and not the chair, that's correct. Q. So it would only be the dean who could issue a renewal? A. The dean's office, I think, would be a fair description, rather than the dean herself, if she's delegated that. Q. In fact, this letterthe original letter was signed by the dean; correct? A. Correct, but that's for starting. When you continue THE COURT: Excuse me, I don't see the need to always explain. Answer the question. Next question, please. THE WITNESS: I'm sorry. I'm just trying to be helpful. THE COURT: It would be helpful if you just get done with the testimony. THE WITNESS: All right. THE COURT: Go ahead, please. Q. There is no letter of reappointment from the dean, correct? A. That's correct. Ultimately, the government agreed to enter into a stipulation that there was no written [re]appointment made to him. Defense counsel, however, never offered such a stipulation into evidence. Appellant now claims that the government violated her due process rights because it knew that Dr. Shaibani's testimony regarding his employment at Temple University was false. Proceeding from that premise, appellant contends that Dr. Shaibani's testimony regarding his expertise was also false. She further maintains not only that the government failed to conduct a sufficient investigation of defense counsel's allegations of perjury on the part of Dr. Shaibani, and that the government knew or should have known about the perjury, but that there was a reasonable likelihood that Dr. Shaibani's allegedly false testimony affected the judgment of the jury. See United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392. The government responds, first, that Dr. Shaibani did not perjure himself. Second, the government argues that even if Dr. Shaibani's testimony regarding his reappointment was false, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the government knew or should have known about it. Furthermore, the government contends that Dr. Shaibani's testimony was not substantially different from that of Dr. Arden, aside from the fact that Dr. Arden emphasized that was not his practice to ever exclude things with 100 percent certainty. Both doctors were in agreement that it was unlikely that Brianna sustained her injuries from a fall down the stairs. Therefore, the government maintains that there was no reasonable likelihood that Dr. Shaibani's testimony regarding his affiliation with Temple University, even if it was false (which the government disputes), would have prejudicially affected the jury's verdict.