Opinion ID: 1969084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the missing witnesses

Text: Wilson's trial commenced at 10:00 a.m. on June 15, 1995. Immediately after selection of the jury, defense counsel informed the court that she had submitted requests for subpoenas for Andrea Coleman and Jacqueline Harris but that it did not appear that those subpoenas had been served. She said that she had prepared new subpoenas for those witnesses, whose testimony she contended was imperative for the defense, and intended to have them served by private process server at noontime. The court made no substantive comment, and the trial then began. The State concluded its case in the early afternoon, at which point counsel noted that one of her witnessesMs. Jenningswas in court but that she had received no word with respect to Ms. Coleman or Ms. Harris, neither of whom was in court. The court had indicated that it would recess by 3:30. Counsel thereupon proceeded with the testimony of Ms. Jennings and Mr. Wilson. Court recessed at 3:11 p.m. Before excusing the jury, the court announced that the case would resume at 2:00 p.m. the next day. When trial resumed at 2:14 p.m. on June 16, neither Mr. Wilson nor the two other witnesses were in court. Counsel informed the court that Ms. Coleman had been served with a subpoena, and she asked for a body attachment. Apparently miffed at Wilson's absence, the court asked why it should subpoena a witness for the defendant who refuses to come to court. Counsel responded that she had filed a proper request for subpoena on June 7, that the subpoena issued the day before had, in fact, been served at Ms. Coleman's new address, which she gave to the court, and that the witness had been ordered to report by 1:30. She urged that, with or without Wilson, she can't go forward without this particular witness.... The court responded, without any foundation for its remark, that [h]e doesn't want to be here. He doesn't want his witnessthis is his good friend. He doesn't want his witness to be here. [1] After some further brief discussion, Mr. Wilson appeared and said that he did want Ms. Coleman to testify. He indicated that he had attempted to reach her by telephone but that the phone had been disconnected. There was some further indication that he had intended to pick up the witness and bring her to court. Although counsel said that she did not know where Ms. Coleman was at the moment, she did have the woman's new address and asked that the sheriff be dispatched. The court initially agreed, if a sheriff was immediately available, and it asked the deputy sheriff in the courtroom to check to see if another deputy could be sent to the new address. It noted: We'll see if we can get a sheriff out there. It shouldn't take more thanif we can get somebody immediately, it shouldn't take more than 20 minutes to get somebody out there and determine if they can or can't have the witness here. After a pause, the courtroom deputy returned to inform the court that, because of an amnesty program operating that day, they just can't turn nobody loose. When the prosecutor suggested that the witness was only going to testify with respect to the breaking and entering charge, which had already been disposed of, counsel responded that that was not the casethat Ms. Coleman would be offering the viewpoint of being inside the house. The court then concluded that we can't execute a body attachment today and we have no alternative but to proceed to conclusion. Counsel objected and asked for a postponement, which the court denied. The court noted that it had recessed early the day before and started late that day because of its own schedule, and that it did not intend to bring the jury back again on a third day. It said: The likelihood that we're going to get that witness in here and have her testify and help toyour client seems so remote, it just does not warrant the expenditure of other resources. I was perfectly willing to see if we could get a sheriff out there right away and determine whether he could find her, and if he could find her, bring her in and complete it this afternoon, but I'm not going to bring this jury back on Monday with the hope that he is going to find a witness who is a good friend of the defendant and who has refused to come in without a subpoena yesterday, who has been served with a subpoena, and now he has lost contact with her. Counsel protested that she had never characterized Wilson and Coleman as being good friends. She asked if one of the police officers present in the courtroom could be sent to locate Ms. Coleman; the court rejected that request. With no other evidence to present, the defense rested. The court denied Wilson's motion for judgment of acquittal and, after instructions and closing argument, the case was submitted to the jury.