Opinion ID: 2320313
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The inquiry into whether Benn and his mother discussed the alibi.

Text: The bulk of the prosecutor's cross-examination of Benn consisted of questions that moved chronologically through the government's version of the events leading up to the homicide. Benn repeatedly denied any involvement in the offense, but he acknowledged that, as the defendant, he had an interest in the outcome of the case. The prosecutor then turned to the primary theme of his cross-examination, namely, that Benn must have coordinated his alibi with his mother. The prosecutor asked: Q: You talked to your mother about the case, right? A: No, sir. Q: You mean to tell me that the lady that just testified before you, who[] you say is your mother, you never talked to her at all about this case? A: No, sir. Q: And she never asked you about this case, did she? A: No, sir. The prosecutor spent the remainder of the cross-examination hammering home the point that Benn claimed never to have communicated with his mother about his whereabouts on the night of the murder, and setting the stage for an argument that such a claim was inherently improbable. The questioning included instances in which the prosecutor put hypothetical words in the mother's mouth: Q: She never said, Raymond, how could they accuse you of something like that? Honey, you were at home with me. Remember, you gave me, you and Roland and Ronald gave me a teddy bear. Remember that? She never talked to you about that? A: No sir. . . . Q: And when she found out that you were facing these charges, she never came to you and said, I'll go down there, I'll get up on that stand and I'll tell them where you were? A: No sir, she did not. There was no contemporaneous objection to any of these questions. When the prosecutor, again without objection, inquired whether Benn had spoken to his brother about the offense, Benn replied that he had never discussed the case with anyone besides my lawyer [and] my investigator. On redirect examination, in response to questions by his own attorney, Benn explained why he did not discuss the alibi with his mother: Q: Mr. Benn, why? Why is it that you didn't talk with your mother about a homicide case that you are charged with? A: Because you told me never to talk to nobody about my case. Q: When did I tell you that? A: I believe the day that we met, the first day, I think the next day when I went to court, on the 23rd, I believe. Q: Did you follow my advice? A: Yes, sir. E. The defense's attempt to recall Mrs. Thomas. After completing the redirect examination, defense counsel stated that in light of those last questions, he would like to recall Benn's mother to the stand. The trial judge immediately summoned counsel to the bench and noted that Mrs. Thomas had been in the courtroom while her son was testifying. This was not the first time that the question of Mrs. Thomas' presence in the courtroom had arisen. Earlier in the proceedings, during a motions hearing, the judge and the attorneys discussed a defense request for the production of Mrs. Thomas' grand jury testimony. When the judge was about to rule on the request, Benn's counsel said: I think I should ask [Mrs. Thomas] to leave at this point just because she may hear our analysis. The judge had not known that the defendant's mother was in the courtroom, and he expressed concern that she had heard some of the discussion. The judge stated that [s]he shouldn't have been here from the very beginning, as you well know. Benn's attorney stated that he was not sure whether he would call Mrs. Thomas as an alibi witness, and the judge asked Mrs. Thomas if she would mind waiting outside in the witness room. Mrs. Thomas left as directed. The defense was thus on notice that the judge expected witnesses to be excluded from the courtroom. When the parties approached the bench after Benn's attorney attempted to recall Mrs. Thomas as a defense witness, the following colloquy ensued: THE COURT: Why did you let her go ahead and sit in the courtroom? DEFENSE COUNSEL: I didn't know they were going to stay in the courtroom. I would suggest to the court that she is under oath. She is going to give her answers no matter what. THE COURT: If [the prosecutor] doesn't object, that's one thing, but we put her out for the very reason that if she stayed in, she wouldn't be able to testify. DEFENSE COUNSEL: I didn't have a chance to jump up and ask her to leave when these questions were asked. THE COURT: You did have a chance. PROSECUTOR: However, she knew about those rules when she was sitting in motions hearing and she was the specific person identified by [Benn's attorney]. THE COURT: Besides, you wouldn't know whether they talked about it anyway. DEFENSE COUNSEL: No, but the question I would ask her is did you speak to him and why did you not speak to him. THE COURT: That's the very reason she can't give the answer if she has been sitting here in the courtroom. . . . I'm sorry Mr. [defense counsel]. It's almost precisely the reason for the rule on witnesses, so she can't conform her testimony to the testimony of her son. Benn's attorney explained that he proposed to call Mrs. Thomas in order to expose as inaccurate the prosecutor's alleged implication during cross-examination that Mrs. Thomas' answers regarding pretrial conversations would contradict her son's. Counsel stated that a [p]art of the reason why I believe I should be permitted to call my client's mother is that these questions were not asked of her. I mean the suggestion is left that she might have a different answer [from Benn's], but the government didn't ask her any questions about it at all and, as I said, I mean there is nothat type of sandbagging allows the jury to be left with an inference that simply isn't true. Defense counsel further proffered to the court that he had instructed Mrs. Thomas, as he had instructed his client, not to discuss her testimony with anyone, and that this directive included any possible conversations with her son. After further discussion, the judge ruled that Mrs. Thomas would not be permitted to take the stand again. Benn's attorney then requested the court to instruct the jury that there is such a thing as a rule on witnesses and because [the mother] was in the audience, she cannot be recalled. The judge declined to give the requested instruction. The judge also permitted the prosecutor to argue that Benn's testimony regarding his and his mother's failure to discuss Benn's alibi was incredible. Specifically, the judge told Benn's counsel that [i]f [the prosecutor] wants to stand up and argue: `Do you believe that, ladies and gentlemen? That's ridiculous.' ... he is entitled to, and you are entitled to argue [that] there is no evidence that he talked to his mother, only evidence that he didn't. In further support of his ruling, the judge stated that the mother sat there, and I looked right at her. In fact, as Mr. Benn was being asked for the fourth time, You didn't talk to your mother about how you were home and the teddy bear? She's shaking her head no from the back. She is not a witness that I would permit to testify, in. . . violation of [the] rule on witnesses.