Opinion ID: 590209
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Right to Testify and Prosecutorial Threats

Text: 12 Davis argues that his constitutional and statutory right to testify as a witness in his own behalf was effectively denied by the prosecutor's repeated threats that a perjury indictment would be forthcoming were he to take--and then lie on--the stand. In approaching this argument, we note at the outset that the accused's right to testify has taken a significant journey in our jurisprudence. 13 English common law jurists, beginning in at least the sixteenth century, began enforcing an evidentiary rule that rendered any party to a civil lawsuit incompetent to testify because of his interest in its outcome. 2 Eventually, this prohibition was [297 U.S.App.D.C. 400] extended to forbid even the criminal defendant from acting as a witness. 3 The rationale for this rule was, as Gilbert explained, based on the theory that from the nature of human passions and actions there is more reason to distrust such biased testimony than to believe it. GILBERT, EVIDENCE 119 (ca. 1726). 4 As with so much else of the English common law, this rule found its way across the Atlantic and into many American jurisdictions. See, e.g., Lukens, 1 Dall. at 6; Jones v. State, 1 Ga. 610 (Ga.1846); Roberts v. State, 189 Ga. 36, 40-41, 5 S.E.2d 340, 343 (Ga.1939). 14 By the middle of the nineteenth century, experience revealed that, while well-intentioned, this ancient and unyielding rule commonly caused severe injustices. Legislative reformers, led by Jeremy Bentham in England and Chief Justice John Appleton of Maine in this country, soon began advocating its abandonment. 5 Their attempts were enormously successful: one fruit of their work is 18 U.S.C. § 3481, a congressional statute enacted in 1878 establishing a presumption in favor of the accused's competence to testify in all federal criminal trials. 6 15 In Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 51, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2709, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987), the Supreme Court transmogrified the federal statutory right to testify into a constitutional right, effectively taking our law a full one hundred and eighty degrees--from a deep hostility toward the accused's testimony to a fundamental appreciation for it. In explaining the textual basis for the right, the Court in Rock indicated that it emanates from a variety of constitutional clauses: the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 51-53, 107 S.Ct. at 2709-10. In exploring the Compulsory Process Clause rationale, the Court commented that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to call witnesses material and favorable to [the] defense. Id. at 52, 107 S.Ct. at 2709 (quoting United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867, 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446, 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982)). 7 Logically included within this greater power to call any material and favorable witness, the Court reasoned, must surely exist the lesser power of calling oneself to the stand. Rock, 483 U.S. at 52, 107 S.Ct. at 2709. 16 Under caselaw predating Rock, a variety of prosecutorial and judicial actions aimed at discouraging defense witnesses from testifying had been deemed to deprive the criminal defendant of his Sixth Amendment compulsory process right. See, e.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (per curiam) (defense witness effectively driven off witness stand by remarks of trial judge regarding penalties for perjury); United States v. Morrison, 535 F.2d 223 (3d Cir.1976) (prosecutor effectively prevented defense witness from testifying by bringing her to his office for an intimidating interview); United States v. Smith, 478 F.2d 976 (D.C.Cir.1973) (defense witness told by prosecutor that if he testified as indicated by other testimony, he [297 U.S.App.D.C. 401] would be prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon, obstruction of justice, and as an accessory to murder). It seems only sensible given § 3481 and Rock that similar prosecutorial or judicial behavior aimed at dissuading the defendant himself--not merely his witnesses--from testifying would surely offend his statutory and constitutional rights. 17 That said, the Sixth Amendment is not implicated every time a prosecutor or trial court offers advice regarding the penalties of perjury. See United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1334 (D.C.Cir.1982). Indeed, there are circumstances when warnings about the possibility and consequences of a perjury charge are warranted--even prudent. As we stated in Blackwell: It is not improper per se for a trial court judge or prosecuting attorney to advise prospective witnesses of the penalties for testifying falsely. Id. As with his witnesses, so too with the accused himself. His rights are not trenched upon by mere information or advice about the possibility of a perjury prosecution, but by deliberate and badgering threats designed to quash significant testimony. 18 Davis here contends that at two points in the trial the prosecutor crossed the line between offering acceptable advice and exerting improper influence. The first came in the discussion of the presentence report. After ruling that he would not allow the report to be used in any fashion during the trial, the District Judge stated that, to the extent it had been an impediment to putting [Davis] on the stand, that is no longer an impediment. Tr. III 323. The prosecutor then interceded, asking the court to 19 instruct the defendant and the defense counsel that while he does have a license--I mean he certainly has a right to get up there and testify. He certainly doesn't have the license to commit perjury. That while I won't be able to impeach him on the stand, we certainly have the right to prosecute him for perjury if he gets up on that stand and lies and we have to prove the statements made to the probation office ... that he was on that scene not innocently.... And if he says anything on the stand to contradict those statements, there will be a prosecution for perjury under the statute. 20 Tr. III 328. The trial judge replied that obviously nobody has the right to perjure themselves, but declined to give any instruction to the witness other than what I'm sure his lawyer has told him. Id. 21 The second incident occurred during a court recess early in Davis's case. Apparently, the prosecutor approached defense counsel and stated that if he allowed Davis to take the stand, there might be a case of suborning perjury. Tr. III 428. Defense counsel, oddly, did not bring this incident to the trial court's attention until after closing arguments. When he did, the prosecutor immediately replied that such prosecutions occur[ ] in cases involving perjury where the defense counsel knows. I mentioned it offhandedly for the defense counsel's consideration. Id. 22 In our view, neither of these prosecutorial statements involve the sort of misconduct described in Webb, Morrison, and Smith. In Webb the trial judge waxed on at great length about the consequences of committing perjury, and did so without any basis in the record to believe that the witness might lie. In fact, he went so far as to say that 23 [i]f you take the witness stand and lie under oath, the Court will personally see that your case goes to the grand jury and you will be indicted for perjury and the liklihood [sic] is that you would get convicted of perjury and that it would be stacked onto what you have already got, so that is the matter you have got to make up your mind on. 24 409 U.S. at 96, 93 S.Ct. at 352. Unremarkably, the Supreme Court found those to be threatening and improper remarks. Id. at 98, 93 S.Ct. at 353-54. 25 In Morrison, the prosecutor sent a defense witness at least three messages warning that, if she testified, she would be liable to prosecution and that her testimony could be used against her. Moreover, he subpoenaed the witness, had her brought [297 U.S.App.D.C. 402] to his office, and admonished her further about the consequences of perjury. 535 F.2d at 225-26. Similarly in Smith, an Assistant United States Attorney told a defense witness that if he took the stand and testified in an ongoing murder trial that he would, as the witness related it, be prosecuted for a weapons charge and as an accessory to the murder. 478 F.2d at 978. This, the prosecutor promised, even if the witness testified truthfully. 26 The warnings at issue here differ from the Webb, Morrison, and Smith warnings not merely in degree, but in kind. They involve no egregious misconduct or baldly threatening behavior. Rather, it is obvious that the prosecutor realized Davis's statements in the presentence report (that he was present to buy drugs, and that he sold drugs to support himself) were in unmistakable contradiction with his defense theory of innocent presence. If Davis testified consistently with his presentence report, he would undermine his defense theory; if he testified in harmony with his defense theory, he would indeed face potential perjury problems. The prosecutor here recognized that defendant had two stories with respect to his criminal involvement and that, therefore, the possibility of perjury was worth discussion. The manner in which the prosecutor raised the issue was also acceptable: there is no intimation that she berated or badgered Davis or his counsel. In sum, the prosecutor acted within acceptable limits; her warnings give rise to no valid statutory or constitutional complaint. 8 27 That said, we wish to note at this juncture the fine work of Judge Sporkin in assuaging any fears appellant might have had arising from the prosecutor's comments. After the first incident, he stated that, though Davis obviously may not perjure himself, I am not ruling at this time what will be the effect of [Davis's testimony], and I'm not going to give any instruction to the witness other than what I'm sure that his lawyer has told him. Tr. III 328. Likewise, later in the case, the judge again made clear the impact of his ruling on the admissibility of the presentencing report: 28 I think what the Government has said is that if [Davis] ((truth, that's what they would consider [i.e. a perjury charge]. Look, the point is I cannot grant any immunity. All I can tell you [is] what my ruling is. I can tell you that, you know, the Government can take any position that they want to take. You know my ruling that everything [regarding the presentence report] has been erased. So that's up--you can make your own decision [about testifying]. I wouldn't worry about what the Government says. I'd worry about what the Court says. 29 The Court has taken away every barrier that you've raised here to [Davis] testifying, and I have given you a ruling [establishing the inadmissibility of the presentencing report]. 30 Tr. III 387. Finally, after being informed of the off-the-record comment after the government's closing argument, the trial judge commented that 31 I have told you in the strongest terms I can I've taken away every roadblock to prevent [Davis] from testifying. I don't know what more I can do. If you want to listen to the prosecutor and don't want to listen to the Judge, that's your problem. But I've given you every opportunity. 32 Tr. III 428-29. 33 As these passages demonstrate, the trial court made every effort to instruct Davis that, though it could not grant immunity, no obstacles prevented him from testifying. Any error that might have arisen from the [297 U.S.App.D.C. 403] prosecutor's comments was thus rendered harmless by the court's curative comments. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 827-28, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1966) (while obliged to correct errors affecting the substantial rights of a criminal defendant, appellate courts generally do not intervene to correct purely harmless errors).