Opinion ID: 4550524
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: General Courtroom Procedures

Text: As observed earlier, before determining whether clerk Crowley’s testimony about trial court procedures was admissible under Rule 701, 24 Goldsberry requires us to evaluate whether that testimony satisfied the public record exception to the 22 Id. at 682-83. 23 Although appellant agrees that, if expert testimony is not required, Rule 701 applies, he then argues, on the facts, that Rule 701 fails to justify admission of Crowley’s lay opinion testimony. 24 See supra note 18 subsections (a) and (b). 15 hearsay rule, requiring demonstration that clerk Crowley was “able to identify the record as authentic and as made in the ordinary course of business.” 25 As the foundation for admitting in evidence certified copies of the docket entry, the Release of Conditions form, and the bench warrant (government exhibits 1, 2, and 3), Crowley first explained her overall duties as clerk: she “pretty much manage[s] the courtroom”; prints and posts the “courtroom calendar” each day; prepares the paperwork for each defendant’s case; and adds the “docketing entries,” including “what occurred” when the case was called, the defendant’s “release status” pending trial, and a notice — which the defendant signs — specifying when the defendant must return to court and adding the “penalties” for failing to so. Clerk Crowley adds an “oral warning” that “explain[s] the penalties,” including a bench warrant for the defendant’s arrest. She also notes in the court record when a defendant “does not appear after his or her name is called.” Importantly, Crowley generalized her testimony; she confirmed that “all of the courtroom clerks here in D.C. Superior Court follow a similar procedure each morning.” 25 Goldsberry, 598 A.2d at 379; see supra notes 9 & 10 and accompanying text. 16