Opinion ID: 2196771
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Green's Testimony

Text: The government initially proposed to call Katrice Green in its case-in-chief, proffering that her testimony would be relevant to prove Clayborne's consciousness of guilt. In a voir dire examination outside the presence of the jury, Green testified that some time after her brother died, she was standing in line at an ice cream truck and became aware that Clayborne was in line behind her. Green then saw Clayborne make fist gestures at me like he want to hit me or something  gestures which Green demonstrated and which were described as making a fist with one hand and putting it into the other open hand. As Clayborne made these gestures, Green heard him say man, you know, like, like man, he was mad or something. Green testified that she ignored Clayborne, and nothing further happened. The trial court ruled that Clayborne's conduct as described by Green was too ambiguous to have any probative value, and that therefore the government would not be permitted to present Green's testimony in its case-in-chief. Clayborne thereafter testified in the defense case. On direct examination Clayborne said that he heard rumors after Burns was shot that he was involved in the shooting, but he did not do anything in response because he knew he was innocent and there was nothing for him to do. On cross-examination the prosecutor questioned Clayborne about his failure to take steps to clear his name, and then, over objection, asked him about the incident which Green had earlier described. Clayborne testified that he remembered no such event. Following this testimony the trial court permitted the government to call Green as a rebuttal witness. Over the objection of defense counsel, the court ruled that Green could testify in rebuttal about Clayborne's behavior at the ice cream truck because Clayborne had testified and put his credibility in issue. Green then testified consistently with her voir dire examination. On cross-examination Green admitted that she and Clayborne had once been lovers and were still friends at the time of the ice cream truck incident. She also agreed that Clayborne never threatened her previously. In his initial summation the prosecutor mentioned Green's testimony only briefly, referring to it as a little thing which counted a little bit as circumstantial evidence of guilt. The prosecutor did not argue explicitly that Clayborne's behavior at the ice cream truck revealed his consciousness of guilt. Defense counsel argued that Green's rebuttal testimony was meaningless and that the government was trying too hard . . . if they're trying to make that seem like evidence. The prosecutor did not revisit Green's testimony in his rebuttal argument. On appeal, Clayborne argues that Green's testimony was collateral and not proper rebuttal evidence, and prejudicial because despite its lack of probative value, the jury would inevitably infer from it that Clayborne was trying to intimidate Green because he felt guilty.