Opinion ID: 1950123
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Background for the Statement Against Penal Interest Issue

Text: At the outset, we set forth the background essential for the discussion of the parties' arguments regarding the trial court's ruling on the proposed testimony of Mr. Hamilton. In the absence of the jury, Mr. Hamilton testified that Mr. Ross and he were childhood friends, and they attended the same elementary and junior high schools. Mr. Hamilton knows Mr. Gilchrist; he had a close relationship with one of Mr. Gilchrist's brothers, Jimmy Smith; and he knew another one of Mr. Gilchrist's brothers, Buddy. At some point in Summer 2002, July or August, late at night, Mr. Hamilton was walking across a field of Johnson Junior High School in Southeast, Washington, when he saw Mr. Ross. Mr. Ross wanted to get high, and the two men smoked crack cocaine. Mr. Hamilton estimated that they smoked about five dime bags of coke while they were together. While speaking with Mr. Ross, Mr. Hamilton said he had heard that Mr. Ross was hot, meaning, helping the government. Mr. Ross responded that in exchange for getting a charge against him dismissed, or dropped to a lesser offense, he would have to testify against Mr. Gilchrist. As the men continued to get high, Mr. Ross indicated that he would tell Mr. Hamilton something that only Ms. Butler knew  the dude that [Mr. Gilchrist] got accused of killing, he's [that is, Mr. Ross is] the one that slobbed [killed] him, is how he said it, and put him under some boards in the alley on Mellon Street, just like that. Mr. Ross stated that he shot the dude, a male, because he robbed him, but Mr. Ross did not specify how much money he took from the man. Mr. Ross was killed later in 2002. On cross-examination by government counsel, Mr. Hamilton admitted having used several other names and four different Social Security numbers. He also acknowledged past convictions, and incarceration in 1991 and 1992. In addition, he conceded that the first time defense investigators spoke with him, he only mentioned the conversation he had with Mr. Ross about his helping the government, and that during his last conversation with the investigators, [7] he did not know or did not recall whether he revealed, or he probably did reveal, Mr. Ross' statement about his reason for shooting the male person. When the prosecutor posed the question, And [Mr. Ross] told you he shot [the man] in the alley, Mr. Hamilton replied, In the alley on Mellon Street. In response to the prosecutor's question concerning what Mr. Ross had told him about boards, Mr. Hamilton answered: He said something about some boards. Body by some boards, body under some boards, something about some boards.... He said something about some boards. He said he shot the dude, slobbed the dude, something about some boards, under boards, by some boards, something about some boards. At the conclusion of the cross-examination, the trial judge inquired, what did [Mr. Ross] say about why he killed this guy? Mr. Hamilton stated, He didn't.... If I say, I'd just be speculating. Responding to other questions posed by the trial judge, Mr. Hamilton declared that Mr. Ross did not say whether the man shot was white or black, or how old he was, or whether he lived in the neighborhood. On redirect examination, Mr. Hamilton explained that Mr. Ross said he was robbing the man when he shot him, but Mr. Hamilton did not know why Mr. Ross shot him. Following the testimony of Mr. Hamilton, the trial court listened to the arguments of defense and government counsel, including defense counsel's assertion that the trial court had to determine the credibility of Mr. Hamilton. [8] The trial court then rendered its ruling, precluding Mr. Hamilton's testimony under prongs 1 and 3 of the test we articulated in Laumer. As for the first prong, the trial court determined, and was quite clearly convinced[,] that Mr. Hamilton [was] not telling the truth, that he has basically fabricated this statement. The trial judge commented that Mr. Hamilton's demeanor was demonstrative of his lack of truthfulness  His demeanor was not serious; he made gratuitous remarks; and he was engaged in kind of a game that he was apparently playing with the court. Furthermore, Mr. Hamilton smoked five bags of crack cocaine with Mr. Ross, which puts in serious question ... the credibility of Mr. Hamilton's recollection of what transpired during [the] conversation between the two men. [9] With regard to the third Laumer prong  there must be corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate the trustworthiness of Mr. Ross' purported statement to Mr. Hamilton  the trial court noted that while Mr. Ross' statement, as recounted by Mr. Hamilton, included references to boards and robbery, notably, the statement incorrectly specified the place of Mr. Davis' shooting as the alley rather than the apartment of Ms. Butler. Also, significantly, Mr. Ross did not make his alleged statement until five years after Mr. Davis' murder. And, the court pointed to the overwhelming evidence that Mr. Gilchrist murdered Mr. Davis. Defense counsel raised no objection at the conclusion of the trial court's analysis. Hence, the trial court concluded that what Mr. Ross allegedly told Mr. Hamilton in Summer 2002, could not be allowed into evidence as a statement against penal interest because, under Laumer, Mr. Hamilton was not a credible witness, and Mr. Gilchrist had not show[n] that there are corroborating circumstances here that clearly indicate the trustworthiness of [the] purported statement by Mr. Ross.