Opinion ID: 2549875
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Unrecorded ex parte witness interview

Text: Appellant contends that the district court committed serious error when it held an unrecorded ex parte meeting with a witness for the State after the witness initially declined to testify. Woods, a key witness for the State, invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent soon after being called to testify. The jury was excused so that the district court could inquire into the basis for Woods' assertion of the Fifth Amendment. After the jury exited the courtroom, the district court asked Woods if he wanted an attorney appointed for him, and he declined. The prosecutor informed the court he did not intend to ask Woods any questions that might lead to an incriminating response, but defense counsel indicated she did intend to ask such questions. Woods told the court that he did not want to speak to the prosecutors about his decision to remain silent and was reluctant to identify the basis for his assertion of the right. Sua sponte, the district court then announced that it would take the matter up in camera. The court stated: I'm going to inquire of Mr. Woods what his concerns are and make a determination if, in fact, he has a legitimate right to refuse to testify. Neither counsel objected to this procedure. The district court met with Woods in chambers without counsel and without recording the discussion. Returning to the courtroom without Woods, the district court told both parties that it had informed Woods that the Fifth Amendment gave him the right to avoid self-incrimination. According to the district court, Woods said that he was not afraid of self-incrimination but of retaliation from appellant's family or friends, though he did not indicate any specific threats made to him by the defendant or anyone else. Woods returned to the courtroom, and the prosecutor informed him that the State was willing to provide him with protection if necessary. The district court informed Woods that if he refused to answer questions it could find him in contempt and sentence him to 25 days in jail for each refusal. Woods then said, If I have no choice, then I'll testify, if I can't invoke this Fifth Amendment. The jury returned, and Woods testified without further incident. The district court's decision to conduct an ex parte interview with Woods off the record involves two distinct issues. First, may a judge conduct an interview with a witness outside the presence of the parties and counsel, and, if ex parte interviews are permissible, must they be recorded? Second, was Woods coerced into testifying? Ex parte communications on matters of substance are normally impermissible. [8] The district court met with a reluctant witness crucial to the State's case, and as a result of that meeting, the witness withdrew his decision not to testify. This action involved a substantive matter and qualified as an ex parte communication. However, at least one federal court has indicated that an interview conducted outside of the parties' presence, but with the parties' knowledge, may be permissible in extraordinary situations. In United States v. Adams, [9] the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recognized that `in very rare circumstances' a trial judge may confer with a witness or juror outside the defendant's presence, e.g., to discuss threats against a witness. However, Adams requires the trial judge to ensure that the conference is carefully conducted so that no rights of the defendant are threatened. [10] The Eleventh Circuit concluded that the conference at issue in that case was fairly conducted because the substance of the witness's testimony was not discussed and the entire conference was transcribed. [11] Here, by contrast, the district court failed to record its meeting with the witness, and we cannot know whether the substance of the witness's testimony was discussed. Moreover, although the State asserts that [t]here is no evidence that the judge employed coercive or intimidating language or tactics that would have substantially interfered with Woods' decision to testify, we cannot conduct a meaningful review of the issue for error since we have no record of the meeting itself. The district court erred in failing to record its conversation with the witness. This error alone might not warrant reversal but it is a significant part of the cumulative error leading to our conclusion that reversal is necessary. [12]