Opinion ID: 3163494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Stipulation as a Substitute to Live Testimony

Text: Although the government contends that a stipulation as to the content of Burns‟s proposed live testimony would have been a sufficient alternative, this court has held that except in very limited circumstances, “a party may not be forced to accept a stipulation in lieu of testimonial or tangible evidence.” Daniels v. United States, 738 A.2d 240, 251-53 (D.C. 1999) (abrogated on other grounds by Wilson-Bey v. United States, 903 A.2d 818 (D.C. 2006)); see also Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 188-90 (1997). In Daniels, the defense proposed stipulating to the content of a coroner‟s report in lieu of the medical examiner‟s live testimony. Id. at 249. The trial court declined to force the government to stipulate and this court affirmed that decision, reasoning that the medical examiner‟s live testimony also demonstrated that the murder was done intentionally with premeditation and deliberation. Id. at 252. Additionally this court concluded: 19 Live testimony or tangible evidence offers so many significant advantages over a stipulation that we think it would be grossly unfair for a court to force a party to rely on the latter rather than the former, for a stipulation will almost never have the same probative value and persuasive power as the testimony of a live witness or a tangible object. Id. at 251. In Daniels, this court expressed more generally, that the substitution of live testimony for a stipulation was improper, primarily because of its inferior probative value. In this case, however, where the substitution was forced upon a criminal defendant, rather than the government, additional concerns about the fundamental right to a fair trial arise. It is well established that the right to call witnesses in one‟s defense carries significant constitutional implication and is a “fundamental element of due process of law.” Martin, 606 A.2d at 127 (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967)); See King, 550 A.2d at 353. The fundamental nature of this right necessitates “close scrutiny” of any action which has the effect of circumventing it. See id. In this case, Rollerson, a criminal defendant, was given one choice; to either accept a less probative stipulation in place of Burns‟s proposed testimony or to present no live witness testimony to prove motive or intent in his defense of the Elvans Road charges. Under the circumstances in this case, a new trial is necessary because of the trial court‟s decision to only permit a stipulation denied Rollerson the right to present exculpatory evidence regarding his motive 20 through Burns‟s live testimony, which if deemed credible, would have substantially exculpated him. See Martin, 606 A.2d at 127. Here, the government contends that even assuming the trial court abused its discretion, any abuse was harmless in light of the weight of the evidence against Rollerson. This argument, however, is unpersuasive because the only evidence offered by the government placing Rollerson in the parking lot and in the apartment on the night of the incident was the testimony of the complaining witness, Harrington. Further, Teamer, the only other person who was present at both locations, did not positively identify Rollerson as the individual that committed the assault against him. Rather, Teamer testified that the man who was involved in the altercation at the car was the same man that assaulted him inside the apartment, but not the same man he saw in the courtroom on the day of trial. The government‟s case, therefore, rested upon the credibility of Harrington. In attempting to substitute Burns‟s live testimony with the proposed stipulation, the trial court denied the jury the benefit of weighing the credibility of Burns against Harrington and therefore prejudiced Rollerson‟s right to a fair trial. In accord with the remedy given in Martin, King, and Williams, we remand Rollerson‟s convictions for a new trial in which his codefendant‟s testimony can be 21 introduced. See Williams, 884 A.2d at 589; Martin, 606 A.2d at 129-30; King, 550 A.2d at 356.