Opinion ID: 1975121
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Impeachment of its own Witness

Text: Finally, I disagree with the majority's summary treatment of appellant's claim that the trial court erred when it allowed the government to impeach its own witness, Tawanna Matthews, without making the requisite showing of affirmative damage under Jefferson v. United States, 558 A.2d 298, 301 (D.C.1989). See ante at 554. The trial court's ruling opened the door for the government to introduce large excerpts of Matthews' grand jury testimony and her statement to the police which, in contrast to her trial testimony, directly implicated appellant in the shooting. Contrary to the majority's position, the fact Matthews did not admit at trial that she had previously identified appellant as the shooter and did not admit that she had seen appellant with a gun in his hand just before the shooting (counter to her statements to the police and Grand Jury), did not affirmatively damage the government's case. She in no way contradicted, rebutted, or weakened any of the government's other evidence; she simply testified at trial that she had left the apartment before the first shot was fired. Jefferson teaches that failure to provide anticipated testimony is not affirmative damage. 558 A.2d at 301-02. The third ground the majority points to, howeverthat Matthews testified appellant had his hands in his pockets at the time of the first shotwould constitute affirmative damage, since it would indicate that appellant did not have possession of the gun, contrary to the government's other evidence. It was the trial court, not the government, that first raised this last ground for finding affirmative damage. In fact, the trial judge himself admitted it was at least arguable that he had impermissibly interjected himself into the case by providing the government with the affirmative damage argument it needed. A review of the transcriptwhich the trial court did not do before rulingshows that Matthews did not testify that when the gun went off appellant had his hands in his pockets (which is probably why the government did not raise the matter on its own). In fact, the prosecutor never even asked Matthews whether appellant had his hands in his pockets when the gun fired: Q. Ma'am, when did [appellant] tell youdid he tell you to go downstairs before the first shot or after the first shot? A. It was before the shot, because the shot was just going off. Q. When you saw him, when you looked at him and he looked at you [when appellant told her to go downstairs], did you see anything in his hand then? A. No. He just had his hands in his pockets, that's all. .... Q. Did you hear the statement from the defendant [telling her to go downstairs] and then bang, the shot. A. Yes. And I left. Q. Or did you hear the shot and then the statement? A. I heard it, he said leave and then the shot. Given the above, I cannot support the majority's statement that there is no basis for [appellant's] claim that the government failed to show affirmative damage before impeaching its own witness, as required by Jefferson. Ante at 554. Although the witness' testimony was not a model of clarity, confusing or unclear testimony does not equal affirmative damage to the government's case. [14] As I stated at the outset, however, appellant has failed to demonstrate adequately the possible prejudicial impact of the trial court's error and why it warrants the reversal he requests. See Johnson, 398 A.2d at 367.