Opinion ID: 2304581
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the government's pretrial motions

Text: Prior to Thomas' trial, the government made two motions requesting rulings that certain evidence be admitted. First, the government wanted to show that Thomas possessed and had access to a gun prior to Young's murder. Second, the government sought to prove that Thomas lent a gun to Young and gave him some drugs. Young lost the gun and somehow disposed of the drugs and was unable to pay [Thomas]; Thomas threatened Young; demanded his money and when Young failed to pay him, Thomas got a .45 caliber gun from the 18th Street, N.E. house and killed Young. In his written response, Thomas opposed that part of the government's second motion which concerned testimony from a witness that Thomas said he shot someone because he owed him money. Thomas claimed that the witness had recanted her statement. Moreover, Thomas' opposition to the motions stated, The defendant does not contend that most of the other evidence . . . would not be admissible as an integral part of the charged crimes. . . . [T]he defendant would object to the admission of the evidence as a `drug debt'... [because it] would be so prejudicial as to outweigh any probative value. After hearing argument on the government's motions and the defendant's opposition, the trial court disallowed any testimony about drugs, on prejudice grounds. However, the trial court concluded that evidence concerning the 9mm gun and the money debt fell into the category of Toliver [6] rather than Drew [7] evidence because the transfer of the gun from Thomas to Young would not be a crime if the gun is properly registered. In addition, the 9mm gun was part of the story leading up to Young's murder, and hence was relevant and probative. Although Thomas argued during the hearing that a witness' testimony regarding the money debt had been recanted, the trial court allowed it in as an admission after reviewing the witness' grand jury testimony and concluding that there are sufficient indicia of reliability. Further, the trial court stated, the defense could use whatever unsworn recantation it had to impeach the witness. With regard to evidence concerning Thomas' possession of and access to a gun prior to Young's murder, the government's motion relied on Jones v. United States, 477 A.2d 231 (D.C.1984). In his written opposition to the government's motion, Thomas argued that the government has not proffered any evidence that defendant was in possession of the same type of weapon that is alleged to be the murder weapon. The trial court ruled that the testimony would be admitted under Jones. After his conviction, Thomas filed a timely direct appeal challenging the trial court's admission of evidence relating to the 9mm gun and the .45 caliber pistol. He asserts that the admission of this other crimes evidence was more prejudicial than probative. Thomas also attacks his conviction through a motion under D.C.Code § 23-110, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because of his trial counsel's alleged conflict of interest. The government opposed the motion, and the trial court denied his § 23-110 motion without a hearing. The trial court determined that Thomas' motion fails to allege `with particularity' specific facts and circumstances to substantiate his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, defendant's claim of trial counsel's conflict of interest is wholly unsupported by the facts of the instant case. Thomas filed a timely appeal.