Opinion ID: 3012059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The allegedly improper question

Text: As noted above, on May 27, 1999, after Johnson was arrested and taken to the police station, marshals searched his person and found sixty-two plastic bags containing 5.7 grams of crack cocaine in a pocket of the coat Johnson was wearing. At trial, Johnson’s counsel asked one of the marshals the following questions on cross-examination: Q: And isn’t it true that you had difficulty removing that bulge [the bags of crack] from the pocket of the jacket? _________________________________________________________________ 3. The District Court had jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. S 3231. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. S 1291 and 18 U.S.C. S 3742. 7 A: Yes, I did. Q: And isn’t it true that you asked Mr. Johnson what it [the bulge] was and he said it look [sic] likes [sic] it’s in the pocket? A: Yes, sir. Q: And then you were able to find the pocket and remove the object? A: That’s correct. The Government maintains that this line of questioning suggest[ed] that only after the defendant offered speculation about the location of the bulge was the marshal able to locate it and remove it from the jacket. Appellee’s Br. at 40. Shortly after questioning the marshal about the bulge in the jacket, Johnson’s counsel asked how Johnson reacted when the marshals found the drugs in the coat pocket: Q: And my client’s response were, [sic] if those are drugs, somebody else put them in there? A: Yes. In what the Government portrays as an attempt to remove any doubt regarding the jacket’s ownership, the prosecutor asked the marshal on redirect examination about Johnson’s behavior when the marshal handed him the jacket after removing the drugs: Q: After you took the drugs out of Mr. Johnson’s coat pocket, you say you gave him back the coat, is that right? A: I believe so, yes. Q: Did he say, hey, man, that’s not my coat? A: No. Q: He took the coat? A: Yes. After receiving permission to approach the bench, Johnson’s counsel objected, stating: My client has an absolute right to remain silent once he’s under arrest. The 8 District Court agreed and sustained the objection. Following the sidebar conversation, it instructed the jury to disregard the prosecutor’s question and the marshal’s answer: Members of the Jury, as I instructed you and advised you in the beginning, in a criminal case a Defendant is under no obligation or duty to testify. Likewise, a Defendant is under no obligation or duty to respond at any time or to say anything. In this particular instance the thrust of [the prosecutor’s] question, did Mr. Johnson say it was not his coat, was objected to by [defense counsel] and quite properly so. I’m instructing you that that should be disregarded by you as a piece of information in this case or a piece of evidence. [The prosecutor] is essentially withdrawing that question. So you should strike it from your minds as something that is to be considered in this case. The prosecutor did not refer again to Johnson’s post-arrest silence during the remainder of the trial. Following the Court’s curative instruction, the prosecutor rephrased his line of questioning to demonstrate that the jacket was Johnson’s without relying on his post-arrest silence: Q: Deputy, after the drugs were taken, did Mr. Johnson continue to wear the coat? A: Yes. Q: And when he was sent off to the jail he had the same coat on, correct? A: Yes. Q: And the next morning you found him with the same coat, correct? A: Yes, sir. In this context, Johnson maintains that the prosecutor’s question violated due process. It is not clear from the record, however, whether Johnson received Miranda 9 warnings before the marshal removed the drugs from his coat and handed it to him. Surprisingly, neither the District Court’s opinion nor either side’s brief indicates whether (and, if so, when) Miranda warnings were given. If no Miranda warnings were administered, then Johnson has no due process claim. We discuss this issue in more detail below.