Opinion ID: 1027751
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: David’s Right to Present a Defense

Text: This Court reviews the trial court’s determination of whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial has been violated de novo. See United States v. Ali, 528 F.3d 210, 232 (4th Cir. 2008) (reviewing constitutional claims de novo). Evidentiary rulings generally are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Queen, 132 F.3d 991, 995 (4th Cir. 1997).
The government informed David’s counsel before trial that it possessed evidence that he had cooperated with them against his co-conspirators prior to his arrest. In a taped interview, David gave the officers information about Tracy’s use of underage girls, and told officers he was not involved in the prostitution of underage girls. He gave the officers the names of the girls Tracy was using and said he would do his best to help the officers find the runaway girls. The district court initially refused to allow into evidence testimony about the information David had provided to police citing Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). Counsel for David sought to elicit testimony from Officer Decker (“Decker”) about specific statements David made while acting as an informant. The district court excluded this testimony based 8 on Bruton, although Decker was permitted to testify generically that David had provided information about the case and Tracy’s hotel location. The court explained that, while David could establish that he acted as an informant, more specific testimony would not only violate the hearsay rule, but also create a danger of unfair prejudice and confusion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. David testified in his own defense in an attempt to cure the Bruton issue. However, the government objected on hearsay grounds when David sought to testify about specific statements he had made to the police. The court sustained the objection, but ruled in the alternative under Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and found that the evidentiary value of the statements would be de minimis, because David’s motivation for acting as an informant was suspect. Ten days into trial, David filed a motion to admit “exculpatory impeachment evidence,” to call government counsel as a witness, and/or for severance of his trial from that of the other defendants.
In Bruton, the Supreme Court held that the confrontation clause is violated by the introduction of a non-testifying defendant’s statement that contains incriminating evidence against the co-defendant. 391 U.S. 124. As there were co- 9 defendants in this case, any testimony by Decker as to the incriminating statements David made about Tracy’s activities while he was acting as an informant was barred under Bruton. Although David eventually did testify in an attempt to remove the Bruton barrier, the district court held that the testimony nevertheless remained inadmissible. The district court determined that, under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the statements were unduly prejudicial and potentially confusing to the jury because they were “only offered to counter one object of a multi-object conspiracy count which itself is but one of 17 counts against David Howard.” (JA 2703). Furthermore, the proposed testimony’s probative value would be de minimis, as it was just as likely that David cooperated with police for reasons other than his lack of involvement with the conspiracy, including bad blood between the brothers and in an attempt to minimize his culpability. We hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in making these determinations. Alternatively, David argues that his requests for severance should have been granted. However, barring special circumstances, “defendants indicted together should be tried together for the sake of judicial economy.” United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 877 (4th Cir. 1992). David made his request for severance after nearly two weeks of trial. The district court determined that it would be unduly burdensome to 10 force vulnerable witnesses to again go through the trauma of testifying. Further, the district court found severance of the defendants at such a late date would impair the efficiency and fairness of the judicial system. The court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to sever David’s trial from that of the other defendants.