Opinion ID: 2348914
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prosecutor's Letter on Behalf of Mr. Perschbacher Would Also Have Been Relevant Impeachment Evidence

Text: At Mr. Taylor's trial, defense counsel elicited testimony from Mr. Perschbacher that he had requested favors from the prosecution at various times. At the time of the trial, Mr. Perschbacher had at least four felony charges pending: first-degree burglary, second-degree robbery, and two counts of second-degree burglary. Mr. Perschbacher insisted that none of the favors he requested were connected to his testimony against Mr. Taylor. Defense counsel could and did argue to the jury in closing that Mr. Perschbacher should not be believed in part because he's getting the best deal of his life on his pending charges. But, Mr. Ahsens, in his rebuttal closing argument, stated to the jury, which was instructed to disregard the remark, that there was no deal with Mr. Perschbacher and that he was not a liar. These events would not be of particular significance except for certain facts that came out at the evidentiary hearing on this motion. Three weeks after Mr. Perschbacher testified, Mr. Ahsens sent a letter to the prosecutor in the county where Mr. Perschbacher had charges pending. The letter stated that Mr. Perschbacher, without requesting reward or being promised any benefit, testified for the state ... [and] [t]hat testimony was helpful in attacking the defendant's claim of mental disease or defect and aided us in successfully prosecuting the case. Mr. Ahsens concluded the letter by stating that fundamental fairness dictates I inform you of his cooperation for whatever weight you think it deserves. This letter was sent after the jury returned its verdict and recommended sentence, but before Mr. Taylor was finally sentenced. At the evidentiary hearing on this motion, Mr. Ahsens testified that he did not disclose his intention to write this letter to Mr. Taylor's defense counsel because he had not resolved to do so at the time of the trial. According to Mr. Ahsens testimony, he resolved to write the letter probably at or shortly before [he] wrote the letter. [5] Accepting the motion court's conclusion that there was no actual deal, Mr. Ahsens' testimony at this hearing shows that he was considering whether to write such a letter during the trial, even if he did not make the final decision until after he had heard Mr. Perschbacher's testimony. The very fact that the prosecutor apparently waited to see what Mr. Perschbacher would say, a witness who repeatedly asked for deals in return for information, was relevant impeachment evidence, however, for defense counsel could argue it gave him an incentive to testify strongly.