Opinion ID: 2366053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pretrial Discussion of the Bias, Harassment and Fabrication Issue

Text: During a pretrial conference on January 25, 1995, and continuing to January 26, counsel for the government raised an issue regarding what he anticipated as the defense theory, and the probable government response to that theory. In essence, he expected a harassment and fabrication defense, and indicated that the government would respond by denying the allegations and by presenting evidence of police contact with Butler. Defense counsel said part of Butler's defense would be harassment in a number of unofficial ways, and stated that defense would not [open] the door to every single arrest or every single official contact police officers had with Butler. Butler's counsel added that another defense theory would center on a grudge that the arresting officers had against Butler who had been a defense witness in a 1992 drug case in which Officer Spalding and Officer Baker testified as government witnesses. The defendant was acquitted and, subsequently, according to defense counsel, the officers threatened to get Butler and harassed his family. [3] The government should not be permitted to get into the prior arrests of Butler, defense counsel asserted, because disclosure of the prior arrests would be extremely prejudicial. The government argued that it should be allowed to rebut the defense case by presenting evidence of prior arrests and contacts by Officers Spalding and Baker because the defense evidence would be prejudicial to the Government's case. Specifically, the government identified at least six contacts it was prepared to introduce through the testimony of the police officers: (1) two stops of Butler on August 24, 1992, one for driving a Ford pick-up truck without a license, and the other relating to a drug sale; [4] (2) an arrest on August 28, 1992 for receiving stolen property; the case was later dismissed; (3) a juvenile adjudication after an arrest on September 4, 1992 for possession of twenty-four rocks of cocaine with intent to distribute; Butler entered a guilty plea as a juvenile; (4) observation of Butler on March 9, 1993 while he was with others  four weapons were found; no arrest was made; (5) another observation of Butler distributing drugs in February or March 1993; no arrest was made; and (6) a robbery-related arrest in September 1994; Butler was acquitted. In a ruling on the bias, harassment and fabrication issue, which the trial court referred to as preliminary, the trial judge stated: I'm inclined to agree with [government counsel] that once raised, especially in light of the  proffer here where they're saying that didn't happen, that's a prevarication, and we did stop him, and they can list reasons, times and dates and  and  I'm inclined to say that that's  that would be proper for the Government to  to assert that. Furthermore, in again stressing the preliminary nature of its ruling, the trial court stated that if the defense theory were bias and fabrication, the government would be allowed to bring those . . . contacts in full context because it's just fundamentally fair for the police to be able to respond to such serious allegations and to put the whole matter in its completeness before the jury. The trial court expressed the view that full disclosure would be in the best interest with a limiting instruction. That is, evidence of Butler's arrests and the disposition in each case would be permitted with a proper instruction. As the trial court put it, the instruction would say, in essence, these arrests and/or convictions and/or acquittals are only being admitted to show the relationship of the parties and to allow the jury to explore the nature of the relationship of the parties. No inference of propensity to commit the crime charged could be made. The trial judge emphasized that his ruling was preliminary when he said, I understand that we're all sort of thinking these things through at the same time, but we can address that [nature of the allowable disclosure and the limiting instruction] tomorrow. But I think everyone should be prepared to move on that ruling [regarding full disclosure with a limiting instruction]. In addition, the trial judge said: I think bias cross examination of any witness always opens the door, to some extent, to the full nature and context of that in order to allow any witness, in order to be fair to that witness, the defense or the Government[,] to explain what . . . bias, if any, exists. Finally, the trial judge appeared to indicate that he had resolved most issues, but that at least two remained: And in my mind right now the only open point is whether or not the . . . final resolution of the adjudication in the juvenile and the acquittal in the adult case come in, I'm leaning to allowing them to come in. But I'll hear from the parties tomorrow on that point.