Opinion ID: 687621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 6 In January of 1993, Special Agent Robert Crawford of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was involved in an investigation of crack cocaine dealing in South Dallas. Barbara Howard was, at the time, acting as a confidential informant while awaiting sentencing in a drug case in which Agent Crawford had been involved. With the hope of a lighter sentence she agreed to provide information regarding a crack cocaine dealer known to her only by his street name, Dirty-Dirty. 7 Howard had several previous contacts with Dirty-Dirty. She was the only person involved in the investigation who had ever seen or met Dirty-Dirty prior to February 11, 1993. On February 10, 1993, in a tape-recorded telephone conversation, Howard spoke to Dirty-Dirty and made arrangements to purchase cocaine the next day. Detective John Childs of the Dallas Police Department was called to assist the DEA in the investigation. Detective Childs and Howard arrived in Howard's vehicle at a prearranged location and waited for Dirty-Dirty. After a wait of thirty minutes, Dirty-Dirty drove up in a blue Nissan Maxima and parked on the passenger side of Howard's automobile. In explaining the delay, Dirty-Dirty exhibited white powder on his hands to Howard that indicated he was processing powdered cocaine to fill her order. This was Childs' first occasion to see Dirty-Dirty close-up and face-to-face. 8 Dirty-Dirty then left the scene for a few more minutes before reappearing in the same automobile. This time, Dirty-Dirty entered into the back seat of Howard's vehicle for two to five minutes and delivered more than 50 grams of crack cocaine in exchange for $3300, of which $400 was to be paid at a later date. This was Childs' second close-up view of Dirty-Dirty. Meanwhile, the DEA surveillance team, comprised of Agent Crawford and Special Agent Jeffrey Green, monitored the scene. Agent Green, from an apartment window directly across the four-lane street, was observing the exchange with the use of a monocular. Agent Green testified that he was able to view Dirty-Dirty for approximately five minutes. 9 On February 24, 1993, Howard and Dirty-Dirty planned a meeting for Howard to pay the balance of $400 on the previous drug deal. This telephone conversation was also recorded. In the early afternoon that same day, Howard, accompanied this time in the passenger side of the car by Agent Crawford, met once again with Dirty-Dirty. Dirty-Dirty arrived in a Jeep driven by another individual. Dirty-Dirty exited the Jeep and sat down in the rear seat on the driver's side of Howard's vehicle for three to five minutes. After some small conversation between all of those present in the car, Dirty-Dirty took the $400 from Howard and departed. This was Agent Crawford's occasion to have a close view of Dirty-Dirty for purposes of later identification.
10 Earlier in this scenario, sometime in January 1993, Agent Crawford showed Barbara Howard official mug-shots of a young black male and asked if she could identify the person. Howard testified that this meeting took place at night and that she was seated in her automobile outside of a store. It was dark and rainy and the lighting from the store window was poor. Howard told Crawford that she thought the photographs were of Dirty-Dirty. She never stated that the pictures were of any person other than Dirty-Dirty. The photographs shown to Howard, however, were actually of an individual named Tracy Scott King. As a result of Howard's tentative identification, all reports by law enforcement agencies thereafter contained the name, Tracy Scott King. 11 Defense counsel was never informed of the Howard misidentification incident by the Government. Rather, the information was discovered only through defense counsel's cross-examination of Howard at trial. The defendant argues that the nondisclosure of this information violated Brady. This contention is the primary subject of the appeal presently before the court. 12
13 On April 8, 1993, Agent Green--who was also the Agent that observed Dirty-Dirty through his monocular on February 11--happened to pull up next to a person at a stop light driving the same blue Nissan Maxima that was driven at the February 11 meeting. He identified this person as the same man who delivered the drugs on February 11. Apparently, it was at this point that law enforcement personnel were able to conclude that Dirty-Dirty was, in fact, Ronald Earl Green, not Tracy Scott King. On April 15, 1993, an arrest warrant was issued for Ronald Earl Green and his arrest was effectuated on May 12, 1993. 14
15 On April 8, 1993, the same day Agent Green identified Dirty-Dirty as Ronald Earl Green, Agent Crawford wrote a report reflecting that all further DEA reports should bear the true name of the individual who was known as Dirty-Dirty, which was defendant Ronald Earl Green, instead of Tracy Scott King. Inexplicably, however, Agent Crawford also signed a report in which Dirty-Dirty was again identified as Tracy Scott King. This report was prepared partly on February 25, 1993--the day following the payment of the balance of money owed to Dirty-Dirty--and partly on May 27, 1993--more than two weeks following Green's May 12, 1993 arrest. It should be noted that this misidentification was disclosed to defense counsel. 16 Similarly, a report was signed by Officer Childs on June 29, 1993--about a month and a half after Green's arrest--regarding his involvement in the February 11 delivery. In this report, Childs also misidentified Dirty-Dirty as Tracy Scott King. This misidentification was also disclosed to defense counsel.
17 At Green's trial, the opening words from defense counsel were: 18 They have got the wrong man. On February 11th, 1993, there was, indeed, a drug deal. But, there was no arrest made, not then. And in the days that followed you will hear testimony regarding the fact that the government, that is, more than one agent, in fact, indicated that the person that had made the delivery of the drugs was not Ronald Earl Green but another individual, man by the name of King. 19 Record, Vol. 3, at 94. Green's sole defense throughout the trial remained that it was Tracy Scott King who must have committed the crime, not Ronald Earl Green. The main thrust of Green's strategy centered around misidentifications contained in the written reports, Green and King's similar appearance, and evidence that King had previously been arrested in Green's blue Nissan Maxima. 20 Nonetheless, Green was identified as Dirty-Dirty before the jury by four witnesses, Barbara Howard, Agent Crawford, Officer Childs, and Agent Green. On Green's cross-examination of Howard--who was the first witness called--it was discovered that Howard had previously identified a photograph of Tracy Scott King as looking like Dirty-Dirty.. After thoroughly questioning Howard about this misidentification in the presence of the jury, the defense moved for a mistrial or, in the alternative, a continuance based upon the nondisclosure of Brady information. Both motions were denied by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing. 21 Ronald Earl Green testified on his own behalf that he and Tracy Scott King had been friends since high school. He stated that other people had told him that he and Tracy Scott King were of similar appearance. 2 Also, he said that both he and Tracy Scott King have a similarly placed gold tooth. Furthermore, he mentioned that he had allowed Tracy Scott King to borrow his car on previous occasions. This testimony was corroborated by police records showing that Tracy Scott King had been arrested in December of 1992 while driving Green's car. 22 In closing argument, defense counsel stressed to the jury that the Government had not met its burden of proof in showing that it was Ronald Earl Green who made the drug deal. Point by point, the defense counsel skillfully argued that Tracy Scott King must have been the culprit. He attacked Howard, Agent Crawford, Officer Childs, and Agent Green for their misidentifications. Indeed, he claimed in his closing that all of these Government witnesses were blatantly lying. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of guilty against Ronald Earl Green on the one count indictment.