Opinion ID: 771185
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Videotaped Deposition of George Flota

Text: 52 The prosecution introduced a videotaped deposition of George Flota, Flota's father. The district court held that the admission of the videotape violated the Confrontation Clause but that the error was harmless. We agree with the district court.
53 Unlike the tape-recorded statements of McKee and Flota, the issue here is not the reliability of the testimony, but whether George Flota was legally unavailable for purposes of the Confrontation Clause analysis. In White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 354 (1992), the Supreme Court held that the unavailability analysis is a necessary part of the Confrontation Clause inquiry only when the challenged out-of-court statements were made in the course of a prior judicial proceeding. The state argues that George Flota's deposition was not a judicial proceeding. This argument fails. 54 During the deposition, Whelchel was present and represented by counsel who had the opportunity to cross-examine George Flota and object to questions. Further, this deposition was presided over by the trial judge. Thus, the deposition had all the trappings of testimony in court and was, therefore, a proceeding wherein judicial action [was] invoked and taken, Black's Law Dictionary 849 (6th ed. 1990), and should be considered a judicial proceeding. 55 The state cites United States v. Sines, 761 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1985), in support of a second argument, that a videotaped deposition satisfies all the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. This argument is simply wrong. In Sines this court stated that all three purposes of the Confrontation Clause -ensuring that a witness will testify under oath, forcing a witness to undergo cross-examination, and permitting a jury to observe the demeanor of a witness -were fulfilled when [the witness's] videotaped deposition was taken with [the defendant's] attorney present. Id. at 1441. This statement was made, however, in response to the defendant's argument that the taking and admission of the deposition violated his Confrontation Clause rights because the defendant could not attend the deposition, which was held in Thailand. The defendant had the opportunity to attend, but declined based on fears that the Thai authorities might have him arrested on pending drug charges. 56 In Sines, the witness to be deposed was clearly unavailable for testimony at the trial and the defendant chose not to attend the deposition. The instant case presents a much different scenario. Here the defendant attended the deposition and his counsel cross-examined the deponent. The question is whether the Confrontation Clause compels the government to show that the witness was unavailable to testify at trial. Sines does not address the issue of whether a videotaped deposition relieves the government of this burden. 57 George Flota could not testify because he was being transferred from Washington to Arkansas by his employer and was therefore outside the trial court's jurisdiction. In such circumstances, the state must make a good faith, reasonable effort to secure the attendance of the witness in order to meet the unavailability requirement of the Confrontation Clause. See Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 724-25 (1968) ([A] witness is not `unavailable' for purposes of the foregoing exception to the confrontation clause requirement unless the prosecutorial authorities have made a good-faith effort to obtain his presence at trial.). If the state does not make any effort to secure the witness's attendance, the good faith requirement has not been met and the witness is not legally unavailable. See Christian v. Rhode, 41 F.3d 461, 467 (9th Cir. 1993). 58 In this case, the Washington Court of Appeals found that the state made no effort to seek [George Flota's] attendance at trial. See Whelchel, 996 F. Supp. at 1038. While a state court's decision that a witness is constitutionally unavailable is an evidentiary question that is reviewed de novo, Dres v. Campoy, 784 F.2d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 1986), the finding of the Washington Court of Appeals concerning the state's efforts to secure George Flota for testimony at trial is presumed to be correct under 28 U.S.C. S 2254(d) (1995) (now 28 U.S.C. S 2254(e)(1)). The state pointed to no evidence in the record to rebut that finding. 59 Accordingly, the introduction of George Flota's videotaped deposition violated Whelchel's rights under the Confrontation Clause. If the state chooses to try Whelchel again, the state can overcome this Confrontation Clause problem simply by making a good faith effort to have George Flota testify at trial. If George Flota is indeed outside the trial court's jurisdiction when this attempt is made, then the state will have satisfied its burden in showing that George Flota is constitutionally unavailable.

60 George Flota testified about Whelchel's whereabouts the mid-morning to afternoon of the day after the murder. Whelchel testified that he left the group, at that time five people since Margo was still alive, the night of the murder and returned to his parents' home around 1:30 a.m. the morning of September 27th, where he spent the rest of the night. Whelchel testified that he woke up at about 10:30 a.m. Whelchel's mother, father, and sister all testified that he came home the night of the murder, as he said, that they saw him awake the morning of the 27th, and that he left the house sometime in the late afternoon. 61 The state presented the testimony of four witnesses that undermined Whelchel's alibi. First, Deputy Frank DeTrolio of the Grant County Sheriff's office testified that he went to the Whelchel residence on September 27th at approximately 12:30 p.m. looking for Hughes and Massey, who had been reported as runaways. Deputy DeTrolio testified that he did not see Whelchel at the home during his visit and that when he asked Whelchel's father if his son was at home, the father responded that Whelchel did not live there. While Whelchel's father did not say that Whelchel was not at home, his statement could be seen as conflicting with the father's testimony that Whelchel was around the house until the late afternoon. 62 Second, Jeanetta Massey, Massey's mother, testified that she went to Whelchel's parents' home on the morning of the 27th to look for her daughter. Jeanetta Massey said that she arrived at the Whelchel home sometime after 11:00 a.m. and sat with Whelchel's mother and father in the kitchen. Jeanetta Massey did not see Whelchel in the house. This testimony does not preclude Whelchel's being elsewhere in the house during her visit, but it could be considered odd that Whelchel's parents would not have asked Whelchel about Massey's whereabouts if he was home, especially since Whelchel was dating Massey at the time. 63 Third, David Freuh (Freuh), the manager of McKee's apartment complex at the time of the murder, also testified for the prosecution. Freuh stated that he saw Whelchel leaving McKee's apartment with the co-defendants at 3:00 a.m. the morning of the 27th. Cross-examination revealed that Freuh was sleepy when he saw the group and that he only saw the backs of the individuals. Moreover, Frueh testified that he only saw five people in the group, not six. Under the prosecution's theory of the case, there should have been six people in the group before Margo's murder: Whelchel, Flota, McKee, Hughes, Massey, and Margo. Finally, Frueh testified that he thought the man he saw was Whelchel because only Whelchel had long, dark hair. In truth, both Whelchel and Flota had long, dark hair at that time. 64 Fourth, George Flota testified that he went to Whelchel's parents' home on the 27th to look for his son at a time when Whelchel should have been in the house according to the alibi testimony. George Flota testified, as did Deputy DeTrolio and Jeanetta Massey, that he did not see Whelchel in the house and that Whelchel's father gave him no information about where Whelchel was.
65 The district court correctly held that the admission of the videotape of George Flota's deposition was harmless error. George Flota's testimony was almost entirely cumulative of the testimony of Deputy DeTrolio and Jeanetta Massey. Whelchel argues that George Flota testified he saw more of the house than Deputy DeTrolio or Jeanetta Massey. This may be true factually, but the point was not highlighted during the deposition or at trial. Furthermore, the testimony of Jeanetta Massey and Deputy DeTrolio is not subject to a presumption of unreliability since neither witness was a co-defendant. Thus, George Flota's cumulative testimony does not bolster the credibility of inherently suspect testimony. 66 Whelchel also argues that George Flota's testimony was prejudicial because Jeanetta Massey's and Deputy DeTrolio's testimony was contradicted at trial by testimony from the Whelchel family that Jeanetta Massey and Deputy DeTrolio actually visited their home on an earlier date. Therefore, Whelchel argues, George Flota's deposition was not cumulative because it is the only uncontroverted evidence disputing Whelchel's alibi. This argument was rebutted by other evidence at trial giving the jury reason to believe Deputy DeTrolio and Jeanetta Massey were correct about the date of their visits. An entry in the police department's dispatch book noted that Deputy DeTrolio called the station on September 27th, indicating he was going to the Whelchel residence. Jeanetta Massey testified that she visited the residence after Deputy DeTrolio had been there and reported back to her. Thus, George Flota's deposition does not stand alone as the only proof of a visit to the Whelchel home on September 27th. Accordingly, George Flota's deposition testimony was merely cumulative and the constitutional error arising from the Confrontation Clause violation was harmless.