Opinion ID: 203416
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Effectiveness of the Defense and the Potential Impeachment Value of Gomsey's Testimony

Text: Malone contends that Gomsey's testimony would have impeached K.M. because Gomsey would have testified that K.M.'s testimony was inconsistent with what K.M. told Gomsey. Defense counsel did, however, effectively attack K.M. with all but one of the alleged inconsistencies that Malone contends would have come out had Gomsey testified. Defense counsel confronted K.M. with the reports' statements that: (1) Tony never came home during a sexual assault, even though K.M. testified that Tony came home during a physical assault; (2) K.M. was physically assaulted, and not sexually assaulted, on Christmas Day 1998, and during cross-examination K.M. admitted that she had only reported the physical abuse to Gomsey; (3) Malone was clothed during the incident in which Brenda came home and nearly caught K.M. and Malone in a sexual act, and when confronted with this on cross-examination, K.M. denied telling Gomsey that Malone was clothed; and (4) Malone had offered the pager for one week of silence and the cell phone for three months of silence, and not one day and three weeks, respectively, as K.M. testified, and on cross-examination, K.M. denied telling Gomsey about her father's offer. Defense counsel also confronted K.M. regarding events to which she testified that were omitted from Gomsey's reports. The reports fail to mention that (5) Malone offered to pay $3,000 every three months in exchange for K.M.'s permanent silence, but K.M. insisted on cross-examination that she did tell Gomsey about the $3,000; (6) a pornographic tape was playing during the first sexual assault, but K.M., on cross-examination, insisted that such a tape was playing during the assault and that she had told Gomsey about it; and (7) Malone threatened to kill K.M. after the first incident of sexual abuse, whereas K.M. testified on cross-examination that she made sure that Gomsey knew about the threat after the first incident. Of all the inconsistencies listed by the defense counsel in his offer of proof, only (8) was not touched upon at all during K.M.'s cross examination: the report's failure to mention that Malone made K.M. earn her limousine ride by performing oral sex and having sexual intercourse with him; counsel failed to question K.M. about that omission on cross-examination. [8] Additional inconsistencies in K.M.'s trial testimony also were highlighted through the testimony and cross-examination of Brenda and Whitney. Brenda testified that K.M. had told her that Malone had told K.M. to wait at least three months before telling Brenda about the abuse, whereas K.M. testified that her father had given her his pager for one day of silence and his cell phone for three weeks of silence. (Gomsey's report comports with Brenda's testimony, stating that Malone had promised K.M. his cell phone for three months of silence.) Brenda also contradicted her daughter's testimony regarding details in connection with the sexual assault that occurred after K.M. stayed out too late and Malone offered her the chance to redeem herself: K.M. testified that her father picked her up when she was out late one night, whereas Brenda testified that K.M.'s friend's mother picked up K.M. K.M.'s younger sister's testimony was also inconsistent with K.M.'s testimony in some respects. Whitney testified that she remembered seeing her father the day after Christmas 1998, whereas K.M. testified that her father raped her on Christmas Day 1998. Even after reviewing Gomsey's report to refresh her recollection, K.M. stated that she did not remember telling Gomsey it was the day after Christmas. (Gomsey's report states that an incident with K.M. and Malone occurred [t]he day after Christmas 1998 or near that time.) Defense counsel even extracted an admission from K.M. that the details of her stories were not always consistent. When asked about what she said during her interviews with Gomsey, K.M. admitted that she was not too good with memory, or at remembering exactly what she said. The defense was sufficiently effective in challenging K.M.'s credibility based upon her inconsistencies that the prosecution felt compelled to address directly K.M.'s credibility in its closing argument. The prosecutor acknowledged that K.M.'s testimony concerning various details was not always consistent, and argued that for us to sit here in judgment and to say, []You don't know the exact dates and times, you don't know how you've gotten to the car or who picked you up from a certain time and place[] is not reasonable. It's not even logical. It doesn't even make common sense, to think that she would be able to decipher between each and every time that this man raped her[.] The jury knew full well that K.M. had told inconsistent stories regarding various details of the rapes. K.M., the defense, and the prosecution all acknowledged as much to the jury.