Opinion ID: 2081827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Randolph.

Text: We conclude that in Randolph's case, the issue of harmlessness is at least debatable, and that the government should not be relieved of its waiver. The case against Randolph, who was not arrested until more than half a year after Thomas' murder, is substantially weaker than the case against Stewart. There is no evidence that Randolph confessed to the crime as Stewart allegedly did, and the on-and-off identification of Randolph by Holmes was not obviously reliable. To be sure, Kwatika Johnson testified that on the day after the abduction, she saw Randolph in possession of a revolver which was later identified as the weapon with which Carlos Thomas was shot to death (and with which Kwatika herself was threatened by Stewart). Although at various times, Kwatika gave conflicting versions of various events, the jury had a right to believe her testimony that Randolph possessed the weapon. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in affirming Randolph's CPWOL conviction. Given all of the evidence, including testimony that Randolph was with Stewart both at the scene of the kidnapping on October 19 and when he handed the revolver to Stewart on the following day, it may be  although we need not and do not decide the point  that if the government had argued in timely fashion that the error in admitting hearsay was harmless, that argument might have prevailed even against Randolph. [19] Nevertheless, applying the rigorous standard that courts have adopted for cases in which the government has failed to make a timely claim of harmlessness, we conclude that the error in Randolph's case was prejudicial, not harmless, and that Randolph's convictions (except of CPWOL) must be reversed.