Opinion ID: 330705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Promises to Prosecution Witnesses.

Text: 24 Anticipating impeachment by the defense, the prosecutor, on direct examination, asked two of its witnesses, Ernstsen and Coloduros, whether there were any charges pending against them and whether any promises had been made in exchange for their testimony. Coloduros responded to relocate him and give him a new identity. Ernstsen's answer was as follows: 25 You told me that the only promise you would make to me is that after this trial was over and as long as I was in the custody of the United States Government you would see that I was kept alive. 26 Each of these answers prompted defense motions for a mistrial, which the trial judge denied. On appeal only Vaccaro and Gelfuso urge that the motions should have been granted. 27 Both answers were potentially prejudicial. Precautions inexorably suggest danger, and it would have been natural for a juror to conclude that it was the defendants who were a danger to these witnesses' safety. The government has acknowledged that Coloduros' answer was known to the prosecution in advance. That being so, the question may have been improper. It would have been better to leave it to defense counsel to make the difficult tactical decision whether to risk a potentially prejudicial answer in quest of impeachment. Defense counsel might well have chosen to forego the impeachment effort which the prosecution was anticipating. 28 Ernstsen's answer was apparently a surprise. The answer the prosecutor expected concerned a promise to disclose Ernstsen's cooperation to any judge before whom he might appear for sentencing. An affidavit by the prosecutor recites that Ernstsen was specifically instructed to say nothing about the threats to his safety. Despite the possibility of prejudice, we find no reversible error. The lengthy record discloses overwhelming evidence that Vaccaro and Gelfuso were guilty. As to them, the prosecution's misconduct, if any, was harmless. 29