Opinion ID: 2319967
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mr. Saunders

Text: Tom Saunders photographed and took custody of the firearms Amanda Ward had discovered in her spare bedroom. At trial, the prosecution elicited that Saunders' police department asked him to resign after an administrative investigation into allegations of sexual harassment that he initially denied but later acknowledged. (This happened approximately two years after he collected the evidence.) On cross-examination, Saunders reiterated that he falsely denied the allegations when first confronted with them and stated that he had submitted job applications to two police departments. Appellant claims that the trial court erred by precluding the defense from bringing out the nature of the underlying conduct, even though it was criminal and had not been prosecuted. Notably, Judge Dixon stated that he would allow the defense to ask whether Saunders was charged with a criminal offense as a result of the sexual harassment (he was not), but counsel did not ask the question. The details of a prior bad act ordinarily are irrelevant unless they `bear[] directly upon the veracity of the witness in respect to the issues involved [in] the trial.' Grayton v. United States, 745 A.2d 274, 280 (D.C.2000) (quoting Sherer v. United States, 470 A.2d 732, 737-38 (D.C.1983)); see Murphy v. Bonanno, 663 A.2d 505, 508-09 (D.C.1995) (same). Here, the details of Saunders' conduct did not bear directly on his veracity, and Jones's attorney had much more powerful ammunition available to impeach his credibilitySaunders had admitted that he lied when accused of job-related misconduct. Moreover, Saunders hoped to be a police officer once again and perhaps believed, rightly or wrongly, that currying favor with the prosecution in this case would enhance his job prospects. Under these circumstances, there was no error, let alone reversible error, in limiting cross-examination.