Opinion ID: 1967035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ford and koluder

Text: Susan Ford and Karolyn Koluder were jointly charged with soliciting for prostitution on two separate occasions. They were tried together twice in the Superior Court before Judge Sorrell, sitting without a jury. [3] Because their appeals challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them in both cases, we shall summarize separately the evidence presented at each trial.
The government's evidence consisted entirely of the testimony of two police officers, Richard Skirchak and Gerard McSorley. Both men are career police officers with close to thirty years' experience between them. In addition, each has spent several years with the Prostitution and Obscenity Branch of the Morals Division. The officers testified that on April 19, 1983, beginning at approximately 8:45 p.m., they were working under cover in the vicinity of 14th and L Streets, Northwest, an area notorious for solicitation of prostitution and related activities. Sitting in an unmarked parked car, they watched the activities of Ford and Koluder, who were standing on the southwest corner of the intersection. The officers described seven incidents which they believed justified arresting the two women for solicitation. The first three incidents were virtually identical: in each instance, the two appellants simultaneously approached a male pedestrian and engaged him in brief conversation, after which the pedestrian walked away. On the other four occasions the officers saw one or both appellants wave at passing motorists and engage in brief conversations with the occupants of each car that stopped; each time, however, the car drove away unaccompanied by either appellant. The officers observed that neither appellant approached any women, families, or couples, nor did they at any time approach a bus or taxicab or hand out literature or other objects for distribution or sale. After watching appellants' activities for about fifty minutes, Skirchak and McSorley placed them both under arrest. On cross-examination both officers admitted that they did not hear the conversations between appellants and the several men who stopped briefly to talk with them. In particular, Officer Skirchak said that he heard none of the conversations, and agreed with counsel that appellants could have been talking about the weather as far as he knew. Sergeant McSorley also acknowledged that he did not hear any of the conversations between either appellant and any of the persons to whom she waved or beckoned. Neither appellant presented any evidence. The trial court, although expressing reservations about the case, found both appellants guilty on the basis of the police officers' testimony.
As in the first trial, the government's evidence consisted solely of the testimony of two police officers, in this instance Wayne Mullis and Geary Scott. Both officers had extensive police experience, twenty-four years between them, but neither had been with the Morals Division for more than a year or so. The officers testified that on July 21, 1983, at approximately 12:20 a.m., they saw both appellants standing on the corner of 14th and L Streets, Northwest. These officers also noted that this was an area known for solicitation of prostitution. Mullis and Scott watched the two appellants for about an hour. During that time they waved at, stopped, and talked with several male motorists and pedestrians; a few times one or both appellants yelled Hey, honey or Hey, fellows to the passing motorists. On one occasion appellant Koluder waved to a male pedestrian who was standing across the street. She motioned for him to cross the street, and he came toward her. Then, after a brief conversation, the two of them walked over to a blue van and drove away. Officer Scott followed the van to Alexandria, Virginia, where Koluder and her companion parked the van and entered a town house. Scott sat in his car outside the town house for the next fifty minutes. Eventually the man opened the door of the town house and leaned out; as he did so, Scott could see that he was not fully dressed. Koluder then came out of the house, walked down the street, and hailed a cab. Officer Scott followed the cab back into the District of Columbia, and at Thomas Circleone block from 14th and L Streetshe pulled it over and arrested Koluder. On cross-examination, Scott admitted that he had no knowledge of the relationship between Koluder and her male companion, nor did he know whether the two knew each other before that evening. Meanwhile, Officer Mullis continued to watch appellant Ford as she approached male pedestrians a few more times and engaged in brief conversations with them. Ford also waved to two passing motorists. Mullis then placed her under arrest. On cross-examination, Officer Mullis testified that before the 1981 amendment to D.C. Code § 22-2701, [4] he had never arrested anyone for sexual solicitation unless he or a backup officer had been personally solicited. In this case, however, except for overhearing the word honey, Mullis admitted having no knowledge of the contents of any of the conversations that either appellant had with the men she encountered on the street. Significantly, Mullis didn't believe it was necessary to speak to either appellant because he had already formed an opinion as to what they were doing. That opinion was based upon his knowledge of the two defendants and their previous arrests, and their actions that night. Officer Scott also admitted that before the enactment of the beckoning amendment to section 22-2701, he had never made an arrest for solicitation for prostitution unless it involved actual solicitation or he had overheard a solicitation. Like Officer Mullis, Scott testified that he had no knowledge of any of the conversations between appellants and the various men with whom they spoke that night. When defense counsel asked, Were it not for the beckoning statute, you would not have arrested them that night, would you?, Officer Scott replied, No. As in the first trial, neither appellant presented any evidence. The trial court found them both guilty, although it noted that it would not find the evidence sufficient to convict the defendants absent the recent amendments to the statute.