Opinion ID: 788147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The DA's Contact with Lambert's Trial Expert

Text: 289 The Commonwealth's district attorney (Kenneff) contacted Lambert's expert, Dr. Mihalakis, over the weekend preceding the trial. Lambert contends that in doing so the Commonwealth violated her right to due process. 290 Intimidation or threats from the government that dissuade a potential witness from testifying may infringe a defendant's Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. See Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223, 226-27 (3d Cir.1976); see also United States v. Bieganowski, 313 F.3d 264, 291 (5th Cir.2002); Newell v. Hanks, 283 F.3d 827, 837 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d 377, 400 (6th Cir.2001); United States v. Vega-Figueroa, 234 F.3d 744, 751-52 (1st Cir.2000); United States v. Vavages, 151 F.3d 1185, 1188 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Saunders, 943 F.2d 388, 392 (4th Cir.1991); United States v. Pinto, 850 F.2d 927, 932 (2d Cir.1988). In order to violate the Constitution, the government's conduct must have substantially interfered with a witnesses's choice to testify. See Bieganowski, 313 F.3d at 291; Newell, 283 F.3d at 837; Emuegbunam, 268 F.3d at 400; Vavages, 151 F.3d at 1188; Saunders, 943 F.2d at 392; Pinto, 850 F.2d at 932. 291 Whether substantial interference occurred is a factual determination. See Bieganowski, 313 F.3d at 291; Vavages, 151 F.3d at 1188; Pinto, 850 F.2d at 932. On direct appeal we review a district court's determination regarding substantial interference for clear error. Here, we apply the deferential standards of § 2254(d)(2) and § 2254(e)(1). 292 The issue of Kenneff's contact with Mihalakis came up during the trial. Lambert filed a motion asking the Court to sanction the Commonwealth for Kenneff's pre-trial contact with Lambert's expert witness. Judge Stengel held a hearing in order to decide Lambert's motion. 293 At the hearing, Kenneff indicated that he was upset upon learning, approximately a week before trial, that Mihalakis was going to testify as a defense witness. Mihalakis was under contract to work as an expert for Lancaster County, and Kenneff felt that as a result he would be unable to discredit Mihalakis at trial. Kenneff contacted Mihalakis even though Lambert's attorney, Roy Shirk, would not give his consent. Kenneff told Mihalakis about his concern, and Mihalakis offered to withdraw if Judge Stengel found that his contract with the County precluded him from acting as an expert for Lambert. Kenneff told him not to withdraw because it would only cause a continuance. 294 After Judge Stengel heard from Shirk, Kenneff, and Mihalakis, the following colloquy occurred: 295 THE COURT: [Y]ou've done your examination and you have your opinions that you are going to state as part of this case, I take it. 296 DR. MIHALAKIS: Yes. I have a consultative letter. 297 THE COURT: What is the date of that letter? About when was it written to him? 298 DR. MIHALAKIS: (LOOKING AT DOCUMENT.) JUNE 29. 299 THE COURT: All right. And I take it that your testimony would be consistent with that consultative letter. 300 DR. MIHALAKIS: I would hope so, yes. 301 THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything about the discussion you had with Mr. Kenneff that causes you to not say what was in that letter? 302 DR. MIHALAKIS: No, I don't believe so. 303 THE COURT: Did you feel threatened or intimidated or coerced by that discussion you had with Mr. Kenneff? 304 DR. MIHALAKIS: No, sir, I did not. 305 THE COURT: Okay. 306 DR. MIHALAKIS: Okay. Mr. Shirk, are you aware of any rule of professional conduct that prevents an attorney in a criminal case from contacting an expert or a witness who would testify for the other side? 307 MR SHIRK: No, I'm not. 308 THE COURT: Are you aware of any such rule? 309 MR. KENEFF: I'm not aware of a rule. 310 THE COURT: I'm not aware of any such rule. Okay. Based upon my review of the motion for sanctions before today and before our hearing, this date, and based upon the discussion we've had here on the record in chambers, and the candid and frank comments of Doctor Mihalakis, Mr. Shirk and Mr. Kenneff, I'm going to deny the motion for sanctions. 311 App. 374-75. The trial court found, in effect, that the government had not substantially interfered with Mihalakis's choice to testify. 312 The PCRA Court reached the same conclusion after hearing additional evidence on the matter. The Court concluded: It was arguably improper conduct with some justification under the circumstances. The bottom line is that it did not affect the witness's testimony at trial. He testified consistent with his report and his testimony was no surprise to petitioner's counsel. PCRA Decision 195. The trial court's determination was reasonable given the record before it. Lambert did not adduce evidence at the PCRA hearing that would rebut the trial court's factual finding, and the PCRA Court's determination was reasonable given the evidence before it. 313 Lambert's trial counsel, Roy Shirk, testified at the PCRA hearing regarding the circumstances surrounding the procurement of Mihalakis as an expert for Lambert. Shirk and Richard Jeffries, a private investigator working for the defense, decided to seek Mihalakis's services to offer an opinion about whether Show could have spoken after the attack. They asked Mihalakis to answer four questions after reviewing a group of relevant materials, including Show's autopsy report and crime scene photographs: 314 1) How long would Laurie Show have lived after the wounds were inflicted? 315 2) What wounds were fatal? 316 3) Could Laurie Show say anything afterward; could she have said, Michelle did it? 317 4) How many persons were involved in the stabbing, one, two or more? Were they male or female and right or left handed? Any signs of a male person being involved? 318 Appellate App. 1635. Mihakalis responded that the neck wounds and the right back wound are fatal wounds, and that Show could have survived multiple minutes, but I doubt very much whether she could have survived a full half hour. He further opined that Show's wounds would certainly limit but not totally eliminate phonation, especially words and letters that involve the tongue. Finally, Mihalakis offered an opinion based on the fact that the tip of the knife used to kill Show had broken off. He had taken an identical knife, placed it in a vise, and bent it until it broke. He wrote the following: 319 By the time the knife broke, I was exerting considerable force. While such force is not beyond the capability of an average male or female, the fact remains that the knife had to have been wedged someplace in the body, possibly even bony tissue and then bent back in such a way as to break.... If it was so deeply wedged in bone, I doubt whether a girl could pull the entire maneuver of insertion and bending to the point of breakage. 320 App. 1636. 321 After reading Mihakalis's report, Shirk determined that it would not be worth hiring Mihalakis because [q]uite frankly, it wasn't going to help us a lot. App. 6537-38. After speaking with Mihalakis a few times, however, Shirk felt that Mihalakis would be able to offer testimony that would support Lambert's case. Shirk explained: 322 I'd like to be very clear on this. He had indicated to me at all times that he would not be able to say, to a degree of medical certainty, that Laurie Show could not talk. 323 However, he was willing to testify that he believed that she did not. That he didn't think she could have. And the reason he thought she would not have been able to say what she reportedly had said had to do with certain vowels and so on and so forth ... 324 Basically I expected from him, and this was not only after one phone call, but it was after, as I indicated, two or three, testimony that he would not say she could not talk, to a degree of medical certainty, but it certainly was his impression, as an expert, that she did not, and that she did not for these reasons, and going into the explanation of the vowels and so on and so forth that would have to have been used to say the words that were purportedly [sic] to have been said. 325 In addition, I expected testimony from him that he did not believe that a female could have broken off the knife the way it was broken off. 326 Now, that evolved over a period of, I don't know, a week, a week and a half, or maybe not that long. Several days anyway. Wherein he modified what appears to be here. It was done over the telephone and it was at that time I indicated that I wanted him to testify. 327 App. 6538-39. 328 Shirk testified that Kenneff became angry and upset when Shirk told him that Mihalakis was going to testify for the defense. Kenneff was angry because the District Attorney's office felt that they had him under contract. And he asked if Shirk would mind if he telephoned Mihalakis. Shirk said he would rather Kenneff not call Mihalak is until after the trial. 329 Yet Kenneff contacted Mihalakis nonetheless. Mihalakis testified that Kenneff sounded displeased. Kenneff testified that it was his understanding that Mihalakis could not testify for a defendant because he was under contract to be an expert for the Commonwealth. Mihalakis told Kenneff that he thought he could contract to give his services to whomever he desired. I express to him that I was surprised he was doing this, Kenneff testified, I was concerned about our ability to handle this case properly, given his association with us. App. 5089. Mihalakis offered to withdraw as a witness for Lambert [i]f it was going to complicate future cases, but Kenneff told him not to. App. 5509. They also spoke generally about the autopsy report and my [Mihalakis's] feelings and whether or not you could enunciate anything. App. 5506. 330 As described above, Shirk moved for sanctions at trial and Judge Stengel denied Shirk's motion because he found there was no indication that Kenneff's conversation with Mihalakis had intimidated him. Shirk conceded as much at trial, stating to Judge Stengel: 331 I asked [Mihalakis] quite frankly if this would affect his testimony in any way, shape or form. I think the exact word I used was whether he would pull his punches. He indicated to me he would not. 332 ... [H]e indicated to me that in no way, in any way would it affect his testimony Friday. I can honestly say to you at this point there is no way it has a chilling effect. He hadn't been on the stand. I think he's an honorable enough man that it will not have a chilling effect. 333 App. 369. Yet Shirk testified at the PCRA hearing that he was, in fact, angry and surprised by the content of Mihalakis's testimony. App. 6540. And he and his co-counsel, Alan Goldberg, decided to get Mihalakis off the stand as soon as possible. 334 The PRCA Court determined that Mihalakis's testimony was consistent with the report he had provided to the defense, and we agree. Mihalakis testified that [t]he cause of death is a cutting wound of the throat and a stab wound of the right chest. App. 380. And given her wounds, he testified, it would have taken Show multiple minutes but considerably less than a half hour to die. App. 386. With respect to Show's ability to say Michelle did it, Mihalakis testified that [i]t would have to be affected in part: 335 Ma is predominantly a lip sound, and the tongue and lips are controlled by a different set of nerves so the ma sound should not've been affected. If it was affected it was to a minor degree. 336 The Chael may have been somewhat less clear and the da may have been somewhat less clear. 337 App. 390. Finally, Goldberg questioned Mihalakis about the tip of the knife that had broken off and whether a woman could have broken the knife. Mihalakis testified that [t]he function of the break is not gender related, it is strength related, deliberateness related. If someone is strong enough, they could certainly break the knife.... App. 398. Yet he opined that [w]hile it is not beyond the realm of a woman, it would really make it extremely unlikely, very unlikely. App. 399. 338 Furthermore, the PCRA Court determined that Shirk had no reason to be surprised by Mihalakis's testimony. Mihalakis expressly stated before Judge Stengel that he would testify consistently with the report and that his conversation with Kenneff would not prevent him from saying what was in the letter. App. 374. Mihalakis's statement should have disabused Shirk of any notion that Mihalakis might materially depart from his opinions in the report. 339 To be sure, we do not believe that Kenneff's contact with Mihalakis was entirely appropriate. At the very least, Kenneff displayed a lack of judgment. Yet not every lapse of prosecutorial judgment violates the Constitution. Here, Lambert had to show that Kenneff substantially interfered with Mihalakis's choice to testify. The PCRA Court's conclusion that there was not substantial interference was, given the evidence before it, well within the bounds of reason.