Opinion ID: 2461900
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Testimony of Sara Brew

Text: [¶ 27] In 2009, Sara Brew was a detective working in the Sublette County Sheriff's Office. She was one of the detectives assigned to the re-opened investigation into the victim's death. She testified at trial primarily about an interview of the appellant conducted by several law enforcement officers in Helena, Montana, in February 2009. The following statement from the appellant's new trial motion sums up his complaint with Brew's testimony: 5. Sara Brew. Detective Brew introduced the Defendant's 11 hour interview and then testified to several other matters concerning the investigation. A major part of the defense case was to show why [T.B.] and [R.S.] would implicate the Defendant in the victim's death. During one part of the cross-examination Ms. Brew steadfastly denied that neither [sic] of the witnesses just mentioned had been threatened with prosecution. Defense counsel then produced a transcript in which Ms. Brew testified under oath at a suppression hearing that [T.B.] was in fact threatened with prosecution. It is hard to fathom that an officer of the law would offer testimony totally inconsistent with earlier sworn testimony, but in this case, it was yet another example of the State attempting to elicit testimony regardless of the rules. [¶ 28] The last sentence of this excerpt indicates that the appellant has two grievances in regard to Brew's testimony: (1) that an officer of the law lied; and (2) that the State elicited the lie. Those themes are repeated in the brief presented to this Court by the appellant, wherein he alleges that Ms. Brew's, and the prosecution's lack of forthrightness in this matter materially prejudiced [the appellant's] defense, and denied him his right to a fair trial. The appellant then cites Lawson v. State, 2010 WY 145, ¶ 50, 242 P.3d 993, 1008 (Wyo.2010) for the proposition that not only must the State avoid the presentation of known false evidence, but it should also correct false evidence when it occurs, even if it did not elicit it. [¶ 29] While we agree with the principle of law just stated, we do not see anything of this nature having occurred in regard to Brew's testimony in this case. In a suppression motion hearing on October 20, 2009, the following colloquy occurred during the cross-examination of Brew: Q. Yeah. You agree that's what's happening in the interview with [the appellant]? That throughout the interview the law enforcementI'm going to say you guys, law enforcementis saying that we don't know why [R.H. and T.B.] would come in and say this, correct? A. True. Q. But that's not true, you know why [T.B.] would have a reason to come in and say that based on the immunity agreement, correct? A. No, I wouldn't agree to that. I don'tthe immunity, which I'm not even sure what that was even for, didn't have anything to do with him being in any trouble. He hadn't committed any crime at that point or that we knew about. Q. Well, yes, he did, he was an accessory to the homicide and that's what he was threatened to be charged with if he didn't [PROSECUTOR]: Objection, Your Honor. Totally mischaracterizes all of the evidence that's been put before this Court and perhaps even the facts. I don't have any idea where she's getting to. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I'll tell you. THE COURT: Okay. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, what's happening here is that the police throughout this interview, when you watch this video for 11 hours, continue to tell [the appellant] you have two people, the two closest people to you, saying these things and we have no idea why they would say it. And [the appellant] throughout this interview, and even until the 5th of March, keeps saying I don't know why they would say this. And they pat themselves on the back for showing him part of these interviews and saying we're being honest with you, but that's not true. They knew they had offered [T.B.] immunity and that could be a reason why he's lying and they don't share that with [the appellant]. So that's why those interviews are relevant because they knew when they were sitting in this interview with [the appellant] that they had offered him immunity and that goes to the coercion of [the appellant's] later statements. [PROSECUTOR]: This must be coercion through osmosis, Your Honor, because unless they tell the Defendant about that there's no way that it can effect [sic] him. THE COURT: I'm going to overrule and you may proceed, [Defense Counsel]. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, Your Honor. Q. []: So [T.B.] has reasonthe immunity granted [T.B.] is immunity from prosecution for being accessory to murder, correct? A. I believe so. Q. Okay. So he was in jeopardy if he didn't get immunity, isn't that fair? A. In jeopardy of what? Q. Being prosecuted? A. Okay, I guess, yeah. Q. Okay. That's the whole point, that's the whole reason for an immunity letter, correct? A. Yeah. [¶ 30] During the direct examination of Brew at trial, the prosecutor asked no questions about the grant of immunity to T.B. or any threat to prosecute him. During cross-examination by defense counsel, however, those subjects were vigorously pursued: Q. And during this interview it's fair to say that both [the appellant] and I'm going to say you, you and Mr. Ketterhagen collectively, kept asking why would someone say that; isn't that right?[ [6] ] A. Correct. Q. But you never told him why [T.B.] what [T.B.] said that 11/15 interview, did you? A. He did not[the appellant] did no[t] view that interview, no. Q. Correct. But you agree that when he's trying to figure out why [T.B.] said that you never told him that [T.B.] was threatened in that interview on 11/15, did you? A. Ma'am, that's not correct. Q. [T.B.] wasn't threatened in that interview? A. No. Q. He wasn't threatened to be charged as an accessory if he didn't cooperate? A. I don't believe so, ma'am. Q. He wasn't threatened with a life sentence? A. I don't recall that ma'am. I don't believe he was threatened. Q. He wasn't threatened at all in that interview? A. I don't believe so, ma'am. Q. So you say you were present for that interview? A. We're talking about the one that took place on the 15th? Q. Correct, ma'am. A. That's correct. . . . . Q. [ ]: Now, Ms. Brew, when Mr. Ketterhagen says this piece of paper is going to save your butt, why wouldif that's not a threat to [T.B.] why would his butt need to be saved? A. I think the point that Mr. Ketterhagen was trying to make with that was to say that although [T.B.] had witnessed a murder and was at the scene the fact that he failed to report it, I think that's the point Mr. Ketterhagen was trying to make when making that statement. Q. Okay. So charging someone with accessory before the fact to a first degree murder is not a threat. A. I believe he told him several times that he was not the target of any investigation, that he was free to go. Q. Well, let me ask you this: Mr. Hanson says, What I would be worried about if I was you is that if you don't come clean and tells [sic] us everything that happened and she puts you at the scene and you're still holding out that you don't know anything you could be charged with accessory before and after the fact.[ [7] ] That's a threat, isn't it? A. Once again, I think the point they were trying to make was that although [T.B.] had witnessed the murder 24 years ago that it was okay, it was a safe environment for him to tell us what he saw. Q. What [sic] he told, You have an opportunity to get out of this god damn mess. That's not a threat either? A. I think what he meant by saying that statement was that all this stuff that [T.B.] had been dealing with for so many years, this was the time that he could getmove past it and not have to deal with it in his life anymore. Q. He said he was in a god damn mess if he doesn't speak, isn't that what Mr. Hanson told him? A. I didn't perceive it that way, ma'am. Q. Then this exchange: If we hear from the forensics where we sent the hair with the root on it and it comes back and we leave here with nothing and it comes back with your DNA on it and Mr. Hanson says or even [the appellant's] you put yourself with [the appellant] that night in your own statements we're going to have problems. You don't think that's a threat either, do you? A. No, I don't. Q. I don't want to see you go to jail, [T.B.] Now he's being threatened with jail; isn't that right? A. Can you read that statement again, I'm having difficulty with the video. Q. It says, And if it's not us then somebody else, you're going to get implicated and this is going to be taken away and you're not going to have that option, I don't want to see you go to jail. A. Okay. What was the question? Q. That's a threat, isn't it? A. I don't perceive it to be a threat, no. [¶ 31] This line of questions and answers goes on for several more pages in the trial transcript, but the above should be sufficient to show the appellant's position, which was that T.B. had implicated the appellant under threat of prosecution, but Brew denied that such a threat had occurred. During the State's re-direct examination of Brew, the prosecutor attempted to question her about this series of cross-examination questions and answers, and whether or not T.B. was threatened during the interview, but, perhaps ironically, he was unable to pursue the topic because the district court sustained defense counsel's objection on the ground that it was up to the jury, not the witness, to determine whether T.B. was threatened during the interview. To complete the irony, defense counsel then proceeded during re-cross examination to ask Brew several more questions about [T.B.] and threats of prosecution and the grant of immunity to him, and to impeach Brew with her testimony from the October 20, 2009, motion hearing set forth above. [¶ 32] We will affirm, without much discussion, the denial of the new trial motion as it pertains to the issue of Brew's testimony about T.B. and threats and immunity. At the outset, we will note that there is not one iota of evidence that the prosecutor committed any act of misconduct in this regard. All of the challenged testimony was developed during cross-examination by defense counsel, and when the prosecutor attempted to clarify Brew's answers, he was cut off by a sustained objection. Beyond that, the questions and answers are little more than a verbal jousting match between counsel and witness wherein counsel wants the witness to agree with counsel's interpretation of words used by other law enforcement officers during T.B.'s interview. The appellant certainly was not prejudiced by this vituperative exchange; instead, defense counsel was allowed repeatedly to bring to the jury's attention the appellant's theory that T.B. had lied to obtain immunity.