Opinion ID: 2319967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detective A

Text: Prior to trial, the government disclosed that more than two decades previously, when she was a teenager, Detective A had had a relationship with Leaks's older brother, who was now dead. Although the defense was allowed to use this information in its investigation, the trial court cautioned that counsel could not refer to the matter in open court without prior approval. Neither Detective A nor Leaks testified at trial, so their credibility was not at issue. Only once during trial did the defense attempt to show that favoritism had affected the investigation. During the testimony of the lead detective, defense counsel in essence asked why he had not arrested Leaks sooner. At the bench, counsel explained that he was trying to develop the favoritism of the police investigation towards Mr. Leaks and against Mr. Jones. He contended that the police had plenty to get a warrant for ADW gun back in July, but because Detective [A] is involved in this case, [the detectives] chose not to[.] Judge Dixon did not abuse his discretion by precluding questioning about A's long-past relationship with Leaks's older brother. In the first place, the defense did not demonstrate how the timing of Leaks's arrest was relevant to Jones's guilt or innocence. See McCraney v. United States, 983 A.2d 1041, 1054 (D.C.2009) (A defendant `has no right to present irrelevant evidence.'). Moreover, the lead detective testified that he had in fact applied for a warrant prior to Leaks's actual arrest, and the resulting proffers established that any delay in arrest was attributable to the prosecutor, not the police. Finally, it is entirely speculative to suggest that the relationship revealed to defense counsel would have biased the police investigation against appellant Jones. [20] The record belies any argument that the decision to charge Jones as the shooter and Leaks as an accessory is evidence of police bias. Before the lead detective or Detective A arrived on the murder scene, Davis had already told other detectives that the person he recognized from his neighborhood (Leaks) was not the actual shooter. When Davis identified Leaks during the subsequent photo identification procedure, Davis said Leaks was not the person who actually did the shooting[,] but the one who pointed a firearm at [me] and Mr. Valentine initially[,] and then apologized for having done so, prior to the shooting. In light of this record, the defense did not meet its obligation to establish a prima facie basis for the alleged bias[,] Melendez, 10 A.3d at 153, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion.