Opinion ID: 2085086
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State v. Diggs

Text: In this case, the jurors were entitled to know whether Sherienne Diggs had ever provided an agent of the State with the information she provided during her direct examination. I would not grant a new trial on the ground that the Circuit Court asked questions that the prosecutor was clearly entitled to ask. In United States v. Ostendorff, 371 F.2d 729 (4th Cir.1967), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated: [The trial judge] is not a bump on a log, nor even a referee at a prizefight. He has not only the right, but he has the duty to participate in the examination of witnesses when necessary to bring out matters that have been insufficiently developed by counsel. He is in charge of the trial and may exercise his control to assure that the jury is not mislead by unfair phrasing of questions by counsel. E.g., Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 46, 54, 68 S.Ct. 391, 92 L.Ed. 468 (1948) [Frankfurter, J., dissenting]; United States v. Godel, 361 F.2d 21 (4th Cir. 1966); Simon v. United States, 123 F.2d 80 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 314 U.S. 694, 62 S.Ct. 412, 86 L.Ed. 555 (1941). A trial judge, who is after all `the only disinterested lawyer connected with the proceeding', has the duty to help make clear to the jury the facts and circumstances pertinent to the case. `He should not hesitate to ask questions for the purpose of developing the facts; and it is no ground of complaint that the facts so developed may hurt or help one side or the other.' United States v. Godel, supra, 361 F.2d at 24 [quoting from Simon v. United States, supra, 123 F.2d at 83]. Id. at 732. Moreover, the jurors who convicted Mr. Diggs received the following instructions: ... [A]ny comments that I make about the facts, if I do make any comments about the facts, are not binding upon you and are advisory only. It is your duty to decide the facts and apply the law as I give it to you to those facts.    During the trial I may have commented on the evidence or I may comment now, or I may have asked a question of a witness. Do not draw any inference or conclusions from my comments or my questions, either as to the merits of the case or as to my views regarding the witness or my views about the case. In my opinion, the fact that the jury hung on the possession with intent to distribute charge reinforces the presumption that the jury followed those instructions. I would therefore affirm on the basis of this presumption even if the partiality issue had been preserved for appellate review. I would also reject the argument that we should apply the repeated and egregious behavior exception to the rule that defense counsel must object in order to seek correction by the judge and preserve the issue for appeal. It is clear that Mr. Diggs' trial counsel did not object to the questions asked by the Circuit Court during (1) Detective Giganti's testimony, or (2) Sherienne Diggs' direct examination. It is anything but clear, however, that continuous objections would have been futile and unprofessional and created more hostility and tension. The record shows that, after an objection was finally interposed during Ms. Diggs' cross-examination, the Circuit Court did not ask any more questions of that witness. The record also shows that Ms. Diggs, who insisted that she be permitted to finish her answers, was not intimidated in the least by the Circuit Court's questions. I disagree with the conclusion that Mr. Diggs' trial counsel did not adequately represent her client. Whatever might be said about defense counsel, the record shows that she was not afraid to request appropriate relief on behalf of her client. In addition to engaging in a sharp exchange with the Circuit Court at the bench conference that occurred during Ms. Diggs' cross-examination, defense counsel made the following comments during closing argument: The judge in this particular case was unable to treat those people equally on the witness stand. In other words, when the officers were on the stand even the judge was like, oh, officer, you don't remember, that was so long ago. Very, you know, smoozey and polite to those particular witnesses, but when [Mr. Diggs and his sister] got on the stand it was ... almost to the point of bullying. Those groups of people were treated differently and they weren't supposed to be. Why? Why did that happen? Well, he's a human being. Something in his past or the way he feels caused him to treat two different people differently. It's not supposed to be that way. Every person is supposed to be treated the same by the Court with the same dignity and respect. But it's a perfect example that even though we would like to believe that human beings don't let their hatred cause them to do wrong things, it does happen. It does happen and you saw it here during this trial. In overruling the prosecutor's objection to that argument, the Circuit Court exhibited exceptional restraint. I would affirm the judgment of conviction on the ground that defense counsel's failure to object [to the questions about which Mr. Diggs now complains] was [nothing] more than a matter of trial tactics, which [should] afford no ground for reversal. Woodell v. State, 223 Md. 89, 97, 162 A.2d 468, 473 (1960).