Opinion ID: 2301144
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Admission of Thames' Prior Statement

Text: The main issue on this appeal concerns the admission of a written statement made by Keith Thames in a related proceeding in federal court. On June 19, 1998, Thames pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to one count of conspiracy to commit bribery. In a five-page, single-spaced written statement signed on that date, Thames described in detail his involvement in the side job scheme and named Bell, Banks, and Forte, among others, as persons involved in that scheme. As part of Thames' plea agreement in the United States District Court, counsel for the government, in consultation with Thames' attorney, drafted a Factual Statement which both Thames and his attorney signed before the plea hearing began. Immediately above Thames' signature appeared the following paragraph: I have reviewed the foregoing Factual Statement and discussed it with my attorney. It accurately sets forth my and my co-defendants' conduct with regard to the matters charged in the pending indictment against us. Then, in open court, Thames was placed under oath and stated, in a lengthy colloquy with the judge, that the information set forth in the Factual Statement was true and accurate. The prosecutor explained that he had originally drafted the statement, that both Thames and his counsel had had an opportunity to go over it, and that they had suggested some changes which were incorporated into the statement. Thames' counsel confirmed that the document before the court was the final draft. At the conclusion of the plea proceeding, the judge offered Thames an opportunity to raise any other matters or to ask any questions, but he had no questions. At no time did Thames ever assert that the facts in the Factual Statement were incorrect or untrue. The judge then accepted Thames' plea. In the case at bar, the government filed a motion in limine seeking a ruling before trial on the admissibility of the Thames statement. When none of the defendants opposed the motion, the court treated it as conceded. Later, at the beginning of the trial, Forte's counsel attempted to challenge the admission of the statement. The court refused to reopen the matter, but it did say that counsel could argue the relevance of the statement at the time it was offered into evidence. None of the other defendants made any objection at that time to the introduction of the statement. At trial Thames was one of the government's principal witnesses, but in some respects his testimony was inconsistent with what he had said in his written statement in federal court. The government used that statement to impeach his testimony. At the end of Thames' direct testimony, the government moved the admission of both the statement and the transcript of the plea hearing in the United States District Court. Each appellant's counsel separately stated that he did not object to the admission of the statement and the transcript, and the court admitted both documents as substantive evidence. None of the three appellants presented any evidence. Their co-defendant, Ronald Jones, called four witnesses, including himself, but their testimony did not incriminate or exculpate Bell, Banks, or Forte in any way. At the conclusion of the trial, the court found each appellant guilty of first-degree fraud as an aider and abettor. In reaching its verdict, the court expressly relied on Thames' written statement from the plea proceeding in federal court, and disregarded Thames' in-court testimony insofar as it was inconsistent with that written statement. At the sentencing a few weeks later, the court ordered Forte to pay $2100 in restitution to the District of Columbia Treasury. After Forte noted an appeal from his conviction, the court filed an amended judgment and a separate order reducing the amount of restitution to $700.