Opinion ID: 1940967
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Matters Relating to Alleged Government Agency Culpability and/or Bias

Text: The government filed a motion to preclude, under Winfield v. United States, 676 A.2d 1 (D.C.1996) (en banc), an anticipated defense theory that specific individuals and various institutions other than the defendant committed the crimes charged in the indictment, including evidence that [these] offense[s] [were] the responsibility of an institution. The defense then moved to introduce evidence of bias by government's agents and of the defendant's innocence and state of mind. The motion outlined the alleged failings of the government agencies involved in removing Brianna from foster care, stressing the role that [government] agencies played in creating, failing to prevent, or otherwise turning a blind eye to the overcrowding at [appellant's home], and how that environment contributed to the death of Brianna Blackmond. [5] The motion also asserted that media attention had made government agents eager to avoid responsibility for their actions and had affected police officers and prosecutors, who pressed to close the case fast with an arrest. Investigators thus allegedly ignored and obscured the culpability of... government agents in placing Brianna Blackmond in an overcrowded living situation and in failing to supervise her once there. [6] The defense sought to introduce a bias defense, consisting of evidence tend[ing] to show that government agents deflected culpability toward [the] defendant so as to escape responsibility and produce an arrest. [7] The defense also argued for the admissibility of third-party culpability evidence ( i.e., evidence of government failings in the return of Brianna to her mother's custody and in Brianna's post-placement supervision), which reduced appellant's culpability and thus was relevant to her innocence. At a hearing on these motions, the court inquired how the defense argument was relevant to the issues in the case, namely whether or not [Brianna] was murdered... and, [if so,] who did it. Defense counsel responded that if government agencies had placed Brianna in a house with too many kids, the agencies would want[ ] to cover up their own errors by blaming Brianna's death on a non-accidental cause. When the court asked, How is too many children in the house a causation factor to the child falling down the stairs?, defense counsel replied, You can't supervise all those kids. The court then ruled: I think we are getting very far afield.... I don't think that that argument has probative value, and you have not cited to the court any authority that will say ... that is a valid argument under the law.... In the court's view, the agency's role [in] the child returning home ... confus[es] the issues in this case. It's not probative, and I think it's highly prejudicial to the issues in this case, and it directs attention away from what the issues are.... I think I need to be clear to the defense that you are not going to put Child and Family Services on trial in this courtroom [in] this case.... I am... preclud[ing] the defense from alleging that in any way agents of Child and Family Services caused her death. You have not laid any proper foundation to allege that they were the direct actors in the cause of her death in any way. We all know from everything that has been reported and all of the investigations that have been done of the issues regarding the return of this child to that home. But once that child was returned home, that is what this trial is about. It's not about what took that child to that place.... What the Child and Family Services agents did in this case did not cause the injuries to this child that resulted in this child's death. Again, the issue is solely whether or nor that child was murdered and who did it.... I am not allowing that particular argument to be made, that agents of the Child and Family Services did not properly inspect the house, and caused a safety hazard that contributed to the child's death.