Opinion ID: 2331594
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecutor's Disputed Remarks

Text: The case against Leroy and Mae Adams was scheduled for trial in November 2005. On the eve of trial, Mae Adams reached an agreement with the State to plead no contest to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault. This agreement allowed Mae to avoid the possibility of a felony conviction and sex offender registration. Mae agreed to a sentence of 360 days jail time with 270 days suspended and 90 days to serve and also agreed to testify at Adams's trial. The case against Leroy Adams proceeded to trial. [2] During the State's case-in-chief on Thursday, November 17, the prosecutor took steps to make sure that the jury was not informed that Adams invoked his right to silence prior to trial. In the middle of his direct examination of Trooper Monigold, the prosecutor asked for a sidebar and told the judge, I want to play a portion of the taped interview with the defendant and Trooper Monigold. What we want to make sure is that it's only that portion of statements that he made not about his rightexercising his right to remain silent. Adams's attorney did not object to the tape, but agreed that he was concerned that it doesn't get slipped in that [Adams] exercised his right. When the trial judge determined that the tape was of too poor a quality to play for the jury, the prosecutor agreed to question Trooper Monigold about the interview without asking any questions about Adams's invocation of his right to remain silent. A similar exchange occurred during the redirect examination of Trooper Monigold. Prior to asking follow-up questions about the interview, the prosecutor requested a sidebar with the witness and cautioned Trooper Monigold: Do not refer to his right to remain silent or the fact that he exercised his right to remain silent. . . . Where you can't go is, I tried to ask him this and he said, I want to talk to my attorney, or he didn't want to tell me anything else. The remarks at issue in this appeal came when the trial reconvened four days later on Monday, November 21, and Adams took the stand in his own defense. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Adams about his conversation with Trooper Monigold on February 8: Q: Do you remember talking to Officer Monigold? A: Yes, I do. Q: Okay. Do you remember himremember telling him that you saw a passed-out female that you identified as [K.S.]? A: Yes, I do. Q: Okay. And that you were outside and you saw her again, this time awake? A: Yes, I do. Q: And that your wife called her over, she came into the house? A: The second trip, it was on the second time around. Q: Okay. And then you stated that Lena Koenig was in the apartment with you and your wife? A: Yes, she was. Q: And then you refused to talk to police any further. Correct? A: That's right. Q: Okay. Until today? A: I was exercising my right. Q: Okay. You've heard from the victim in this case, correct? You've been sitting right over there? A: Yes, I did. Q: You've heard from your wife? You've heard her testify while sitting right over there? Correct? A: Yes, I did. (Emphasis added.) A few minutes later, the following exchange occurred between the prosecutor and Adams: Q: Now, new information that we heard from you today is everything that happened in your apartment, correct? Would you agree to that? From your perspective? A: What do you mean by everything? Q: Well, we didn't know anything about what happened in your apartment from you, because you didn't talk to police, until after hearing all the evidence so far in this case. A: I assumed I had the right to remain silent until . . . Q: Okay. A: . . . I choose [sic] to testify. (Emphasis added.) During his closing argument, the prosecutor pointed to Adams's silence to argue that Adams's testimony was less credible than the victim's. [3] The prosecutor first argued that Adams changed his decision not to talk when he learned about the DNA evidence indicating that he had sex with K.S.: But before we get to the defendant's testimony, that night, [K.S.] woke up. The defendant was on top of her. She ran over to the house where Emma Hawley was after calling [Emma], and the police investigated. Defendant's wife Mae said she was too drunk to remember what happened. Defendant said: Victim came into the house; I don't have anything else to say. . . . . The victim was interviewed and a sexual assault exam was conducted. Evidence was collected. DNA was found and typed from semen that was taken, found from the vaginal swab from the victim. . . . . But we don'tit's not athis case is not a fight over the DNA. Right? Because upon the investigation, upon finding of DNA, and after months and months of thought, what is the defendant's story now? It was consensual. What does he have to say? He has to say that sex occurred. Right? He can't say it didn't occur. He can't stick with the story that, I'm not going to tell you what happened. And because he decided to testify, you get to scrutinize his testimony. (Emphasis added.) The prosecutor also argued in closing that the defendant's testimony at trial was not as credible as the victim's because it was inconsistent with his earlier decision not to speak to the police: Defendant doesn't want to talk. . . . On that morning the victim's testimony was consistent with what she testified here. There are two people whose testimony was not consistent with what they told police on February 8th: The defendant and his wife. So using your reason, logic, and your common sense, you get to determine why that would be. (Emphasis added.) Finally, the prosecutor again mentioned Adams's silence in order to argue that K.S. was the most credible witness: Do you believe the victim who was intoxicated and whose version of what happened was consistent the moment she called from the house, went to Emma Hawley's house, was investigatewas talking to police, and then testified here, all of that was consistent? Or do you believe someone who was too drunkthat is Mae Adamsand then she has all this recollection of what happened at trial. And the defendant who says: Yeah, she came in; I don't want to say anything else; DNA is fine, it's him; yeah, it was consensual? Who do you believe? (Emphasis added.) Adams did not object to the prosecutor's line of questioning during cross-examination or the prosecutor's repeated references to Adams's silence during closing argument. The jury convicted Adams of second-degree sexual assault.