Opinion ID: 2366053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trial Issues Regarding the Misidentification Issue

Text: While Butler's trial was in progress, the issue of how much the police officers could say about their prior contacts with him came up several times. Near the end of Officer Spalding's direct examination, the government attorney asked, And how well do you know Mr. Butler? The Officer responded, I've had numerous contacts with him over the last three or four years. There was no objection. Government counsel then asked, How many contacts . . .? He responded, I'd say between six and eight. Officer Spalding went on to say, in response to two other questions, that he had no doubt that Butler was the person he had seen on the evening of September 11, 1994, and that he looked [Butler] right in the face . . . from the stoplight at the intersection until the parking lot, until the vehicle hit me. At this point the government attorney terminated his direct examination. Defense counsel requested a bench conference to inquire about the schedule for the day. During this bench conference government counsel stated that, despite his instructions, Officer Spalding used the word numerous [contacts]. However, government counsel argued that the matter had been corrected because Officer Spalding specified the number of contacts as six to seven. Defense counsel still raised no objection to the use of the term numerous contacts. The next day of trial, however, defense counsel raised a continuing objection to the phrase official contact in my line of duty. Defense counsel thought the jury would understand this phrase to mean that Officer Spalding had arrested Butler six or seven times. During cross-examination defense counsel was careful to avoid any discussion of prior contacts between Butler and Officer Spalding. On redirect examination, Officer Spalding asserted, inter alia, I have had . . . contact with Mr. Butler in an official police manner six or seven times. . . . The trial court overruled the defense objection. Officer Spalding went on to state, I have had contact with Mr. Butler approximately, I would say, 10-13 times total, some of which were not in a police capacity. When government counsel sought the specific dates of official contacts with Butler, the trial judge interrupted to give the following limiting instruction: You're explicitly instructed that ... the police have contacts with many individuals for many reasons. And the fact that the officer had contact with Mr. Butler in the past prior to this incident is not in any way, shape, or form to be construed by you because of law violations on the part of Mr. Butler. And you are explicitly instructed that you are not to assume that Mr. Butler had law violations in the past. This evidence is only being admitted to show that the officer had an opportunity to know who Mr. Butler was. And that's the government's theory that the officer knew who Mr. Butler was and was able to make an identification. Officer Spalding then provided six dates of contact with Butler from August 23, 1992 to July 1993. [5] He stated that on each of these dates he had an opportunity to observe Butler and to speak with him. When asked what physical features distinguished Butler from others Officer Spalding knew in the area of his beat, Officer Spalding mentioned, inter alia, Butler's long angular face, his high cheek bones, and his deep set eyes. He indicated that he has never mistaken someone else for Butler, and that he was able to see Butler clearly in the parking lot because of the take down and rotating lights on the police cruiser. When Officer Baker testified that he knew Butler from official contacts, the trial judge overruled defense counsel's objection and reiterated its limiting instruction. Officer Baker identified Butler as the person who struck Officer Spalding on September 11, 1994. At the conclusion of all testimony and prior to closing arguments, the trial court offered to give its official contacts limiting instruction again during final instructions to the jury. Defense counsel responded, Actually, no, Your Honor, I don't wish that . . . . I have heard it twice. The trial court then cautioned both counsel regarding what could be said about the police officers' prior knowledge of Butler. During its closing argument, the government made reference to official contacts or numerous contacts by the police officers with Butler, but went on to say that there is no evidence ... that these officers have any reason to get Mr. Butler, and [the officers] did not make this up. They are not going to throw their careers away to get Roosevelt Butler. Government counsel also implied that, unlike one defense witness who was related to Butler, the officers did not have a motive to fabricate, because they were just doing their job. The trial court overruled the defense objection. During its rebuttal argument, government counsel sought to go over the dates when Officer Spalding had seen [Butler] face to face, official contact. The trial court sustained defense counsel's objection and said: I don't think it's proper rebuttal. The defense did not contest that in any fashion[,] that the police officer did not know this defendant. It seems to me at this point it would just be highlighting something. Government counsel asked, I can't comment as to the extensive contacts? The trial court responded by allowing the government to comment as to the extensive contacts with Butler. Government counsel closed his argument, however, by saying only that Officer Spalding knows Roosevelt Butler. There was no mistake. Officer Baker knows Roosevelt Butler. There was no mistake that night.