Opinion ID: 2321139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Trial Court's Errors Substantially Influenced the Jury's Verdict

Text: In assessing the harm done to Smith's defense by the trial court's errors, we apply the familiar Kotteakos standard, [10] which teaches that [i]f, when all is said and done, the conviction is sure that the error did not influence the jury, or had but very slight effect, the verdict and the judgment should stand, except perhaps where the departure is from a constitutional norm or a specific command of Congress.... But if one cannot say, with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. 328 U.S. at 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239. The standard for reversal where more than one error is asserted on appeal is whether the cumulative impact of the errors substantially influenced the jury's verdict. Foreman, 792 A.2d at 1058; see also ( Milton) Price v. United States, 697 A.2d 808, 817 (D.C.1997). [I]ndividual errors, not warranting reversal, may when combined so impair the right to a fair trial that reversal is required. Foreman, 792 A.2d at 1058. In deciding whether the cumulative effect of the errors may have substantially influenced the jury's verdict requiring reversal of [Smith's] convictions, we evaluate the significance of the alleged errors and their combined effect against the strength of the prosecution's case. Id. It bears repeating that the trial court viewed this as a case where the Government basically ... doesn't have much of nothing, and we agree. No one identified Smith as the shooter, and nothing connected him physically to the murder scene except for a hat found at the scene containing DNA from Smith and four other unidentified people. Both Christine Goodson and Carletta Douglas testified, however, that they saw the shooter run away still wearing a hat or other head covering. The only other direct connection between Smith and Gant's murder was the testimony of Ahman Driver, a man who admitted lying to police about his involvement with the murder weapon, who changed his story over time, and who received a favorable plea deal in exchange for, inter alia, his cooperation in the murder investigation and his testimony at Smith's trial. The government therefore relied heavily on Gant's stabbing as motive for his murder, which is clear from the prosecutor's opening and closing statements. He first described how Gant and Smith ran into each other at the Anacostia Metro station on the day of the murder, and he explained that this was not a happy reunion because just a few weeks before ... Damon Smith... had been in a fight with Bradley Gant's sister. When Bradley Gant learned about that, he got in a fight with the defendant.... And in that fight the defendant stabbed Bradley Gant to his left hip. So this was not a friendly, hey, nice to see you, what's going on reunion. During closing argument, the prosecutor walked the jury through the motive evidence, describing the fight between Gant and Smith and the events leading up to it, referring to [t]he stabbing [as] further evidence of the defendant's motive in this case. Smith needed to refute the government's theory, but the trial court's errors hampered his defense. Although Detective McCloud's testimony may have been admissible as an excited utterance to show that Gant denied knowing who stabbed him and reported seeing six or seven unknown men at the scene of the stabbing, the trial court erroneously deprived Smith of the chance to demonstrate its admissibility. Detective McCloud's testimony also may have been admissible as a present sense impression, but the trial court's failure to consider the very purpose of hearsay exceptions (testimony admitted under them is indeed offered for its truth) prevented Smith from establishing that it fit within that exception. The end result of the trial court's errors concerning the applicability of hearsay exceptions is that the government was allowed to present evidence to the jury showing that Gant had identified Smith as his assailant, while Smith was precluded from demonstrating that the same victim had said he did not know who had stabbed him. That the government was allowed to put on its evidence with a paucity of foundational support while Smith was erroneously deprived of the ability to lay a proper foundation for similar evidence strikes us as an improper result, and we cannot gainsay that it may have substantially influenced the jury's verdict with respect to the charges stemming from Gant's death, especially given the importance that the government placed on Smith's alleged motive for the murder. [11] Furthermore, there is no question that the jury's verdict was substantially influenced by these errors with respect to the charges that arose from Gant's stabbing (assault with a dangerous weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon). The main evidence connecting Smith to the stabbing was Brown's testimony, but she told police and ambulance dispatchers that she had no idea who had stabbed Gant, a version of events consistent with Gant's statement to Detective McCloud that he did not know who stabbed him, and completely different from her trial testimony (which pinned the blame on Smith). The trial court also erred in overlooking the fact that the admission of Brown's testimony that Gant said Smith cut him rendered Detective McCloud's testimony admissible to impeach Gant's earlier statement. [12] Knowledge that Gant himself had provided conflicting stories about who stabbed him might well have shaken the jury's confidence in Smith's involvement in the stabbing, the murder, or both. Finally, the trial court erred in prohibiting Smith from impeaching Detective Morales with the Club U investigation, which meant that Smith could not undermine her credibility when she denied coaching Driver, and thus could not make his most powerful argument against Driver's version of events. Driver and Detective Morales both denied that any witness-coaching had taken place, and Smith should have been allowed to demonstrate that Detective Morales's denial was likely influenced by the Club U investigation. It is precisely because Driver's testimony was so vital to the government's weak case (providing, inter alia, the only link between Smith and the murder weapon, in addition to Smith's alleged confession) that this error was so harmful to Smith's defense. In addition to demonstrating to the jury that the details of Driver's testimony changed over time in a way that was extremely helpful to the government's case, Smith should have been able to show, by impeaching Detective Morales, that if she had coached Driver, the detective would not admit to it because of the Club U investigation.