Opinion ID: 2654917
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hearsay Statements by Charlie Evans

Text: Under the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, the court also permitted the prosecution to introduce a number of out-of-court statements made by Charlie Evans either under oath before the grand jury or in conversations with other government witnesses. The statements were admitted to prove not only that Israel committed the shootings on Columbia Road, but also Israel‟s and Jenkins‟s complicity in Evans‟s own murder. In an appearance before the grand jury that subsequently indicted Israel, Evans testified that he was present at the scene of the Columbia Road shootings and knew who committed them. He identified the hooded man who suddenly opened fire on the 1-7 boys as Israel, whom Evans knew as a friend of his sister. Evans identified the man in the ski mask who accompanied Israel as Clifton Chaney, who was related to Israel. Immediately after the shootings, Evans testified, Israel confronted him and asked him if he had seen anything. Evans assured Israel he had not. Israel and others on his behalf later called Evans to arrange a meeting, which Evans avoided because he feared Israel wanted to kill him. 8 At trial, Evans‟s sister testified that Evans told her, too, that he had seen Israel commit the Columbia Road shootings. She also said Evans had expressed fear for his life because of his cooperation with the grand jury investigation. Paul Brown testified there had been rumors going around that Evans was “snitching.” Evans told Macey Robertson he was anxious about these rumors and that Jenkins had accosted him in Adams Morgan and accused him of snitching on Israel.4 Evans told another government witness, Niam Pannell, that Jenkins had pulled a gun on him.5 D. Recorded Phone Conversations Between Israel and Others Finally, the government also relied at trial on a series of recorded phone calls made by Israel from the D.C. Jail (where he was being held following his arrest on an unrelated charge). The calls, which took place between March and August of 2006, were to Jenkins and others, including the aforementioned Clifton Chaney and his brother Pierre Chaney. The trial court ruled that statements in 4 Evans also told Robertson he thought the 1-7 boys were after him for setting up the Columbia Road shootings. 5 Pannell recounted this statement by Evans during an appearance before the grand jury. Like Johnson, Pannell sought at trial to disassociate himself from his grand jury testimony by claiming he was high at the time he gave it. 9 these calls were admissible in evidence pursuant to the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule. The participants on the phone calls, aware they were being recorded, spoke guardedly, in a sort of slang or code, about searching for and confronting someone they usually referred to as “Chizzie Brown,” “Cazuz,” “Cazuzzle,” or a similar, transparently fake, variant on those monikers. In one conversation, though, Pierre Chaney, reported that “they‟ve been missing that girl” and that he had “been trying to see if she been out there.” Israel, confused, asked Pierre, “What girl?” to which Pierre responded “Charlie.” The government contended that the speakers‟ statements showed they were looking for Charlie Evans (who, as Blount testified, was known as “Charlie Brown”6). During one exchange on April 6, 2006, Israel asked Clifton Chaney whether he had “seen our man,” and Clifton responded, “I don‟t know what you‟re saying.” When Israel then said “Cazeez, uh, Cazuzzle,” Chaney said he had seen him the previous day. Israel then told Chaney to “holler at, holler at my cousin,” and Chaney replied, “I‟m gonna holler at, holler at cuz then.” The government argued 6 Jeremy Johnson, before the grand jury, also testified that Evans was known as Charlie Brown. 10 that this exchange signified that Israel was asking Chaney to point out Evans to Jenkins (who did not know Evans). In a conversation on July 10, 2006, Jenkins told Israel that he “had him . . . up in Adams Morgan.” The government contended that this corroborated Evans‟s statement that Jenkins had caught up with him there and accused him of snitching on Israel. Finally, on Tuesday, August 22, Jenkins told Israel that he “had . . . Old Chizzie Brown,” who (Jenkins stated) was “off that water.”7 In that same conversation, Jenkins said “every weekend it just gets sweeter and sweeter . . . . I‟m telling you cuz, by this weekend. . . .” Jail records showed that Jenkins visited Israel three days later, on Friday, August 25, 2006. As previously mentioned, the evidence at trial showed that Jenkins found Charlie Evans late the following night, and that Evans was killed early Sunday morning. The government argued that Jenkins‟s statements on August 22 confirmed that he plotted with Israel to kill Evans that weekend. 7 A witness testified that “off the water” was slang for being addicted to PCP. 11 E. The Jury’s Verdict Based on the foregoing evidence, the jury considered a number of charges against appellants. In connection with the Columbia Road shootings, Israel was charged with two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of assault with intent to kill while armed, five counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, one count of carrying a pistol without a license, and one count of unlawful possession of a firearm after conviction of a felony. In addition, both Israel and Jenkins were charged with the first-degree murder while armed of Evans, and Jenkins was charged with CPWL. Finally, each appellant also was charged with obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. The obstruction count alleged that Jenkins killed Evans because he provided information in the investigation of the Columbia Road shootings, and the alleged object of the conspiracy was to prevent Evans from assisting law enforcement and testifying against Israel in the investigation and prosecution of those shootings. The jury deliberated for over a week, during which it sent several notes, one of which expressed uncertainty as to whether it had to find that Jenkins personally shot Evans in order to find him and Israel guilty of first-degree murder. (Recall that an unidentified second man was with Jenkins in the SUV when Jenkins found 12 Evans on the night of August 26, and that the government presented no eyewitness testimony specifically identifying Jenkins as the shooter.) The trial court denied the government‟s request for a supplemental instruction on aiding and abetting and/or causation because doing so would introduce an alternative theory of liability in the middle of jury deliberations. Consequently, the court told the jury that the government had to prove that Jenkins “actually discharged the firearm” himself. The jury eventually hung as to both appellants on the count of Evans‟s murder (and the government subsequently dismissed this murder charge). The jury convicted appellants of all the other charges. As to the charge of conspiracy to obstruct justice, the jury found four overt acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy: (1) Jenkins and Israel discussed preventing Evans from testifying against Israel; (2) Israel directed another person to point out Evans to Jenkins; (3) Jenkins located Evans on August 26, 2006; and (4) Jenkins persuaded Evans to leave with him that night. Although it was charged as another overt act, the jury did not find that Jenkins shot Evans for the purpose of preventing him from testifying. 13 F. Jenkins’s Sentencing The court sentenced both defendants later in 2010. Of relevance to this appeal is the court‟s decision to sentence Jenkins to 20 years‟ imprisonment for obstruction of justice.8 While this was below the statutory maximum (30 years), it was above the presumptive range for obstruction of justice in the voluntary sentencing guidelines. The court explained that it chose to depart upward from the guidelines in view of what it found to be aggravating factors—in particular, that the obstruction was particularly egregious because it involved the murder of a witness, and that Evans was a particularly vulnerable victim due to his PCP addiction and other circumstances.