Opinion ID: 1386258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Prejudice in Witness Presentation in Open Court

Text: This concern is created by the trial process where the non-testifying witness was presented before the jury to invoke privilege or immunity. This subject is resolved by Jones, 777 P.2d 54. [20] In initial trial, the significance for jury effect was initiated by opening statements by the prosecution in discussing the arrest in Las Vegas and outlining evidence that Donna Engberg, in essence, turned in her husband. Argument response by Engberg was that this was not true, to be addressed by Engberg's evidence. Opportunity to present the evidence was precluded by the State's invitation for Donna Engberg to assert her privilege not to testify. The process used by the State commencing with opening statement to final appearance before the jury ran directly into the prosecutorial prejudice campaign rejected by most authorities. See Douglas v. State of Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965); Namet v. United States, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151, 10 L.Ed.2d 278 (1963); People v. Pirrello, 166 Ill. App.3d 614, 117 Ill.Dec. 238, 520 N.E.2d 399 (1988); and People v. Crawford Distributing Co., Inc., 78 Ill.2d 70, 34 Ill.Dec. 296, 397 N.E.2d 1362 (1979). This was additional error in calling the witness for privilege exercise in open court with the near certainty that the jury would draw unfavorable inferences against Engberg solely from Donna Engberg's predetermined refusal to testify. United States v. Chapman, 866 F.2d 1326, reh'g denied 874 F.2d 821 (11th Cir.), cert. denied 493 U.S. 932, 110 S.Ct. 321, 107 L.Ed.2d 312 (1989) (not plain error, however); Limbaugh, 549 So.2d 582. The Texas cases have been exceptionally expressive on the subject of reversible error in calling a recalcitrant witness before the jury where the spousal immunity exists. Stewart v. State, 587 S.W.2d 148 (Tex.Cr.App. 1979); Johnigan v. State, 482 S.W.2d 209 (Tex.Cr. App. 1972); Wall v. State, 417 S.W.2d 59 (Tex.Cr.App. 1967). See also Johnson v. State, 803 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Cr.App. 1990), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2914, 115 L.Ed.2d 1078 (1991) and Cooper, 769 S.W.2d 301; but see People v. Ford, 45 Cal.3d 431, 247 Cal. Rptr. 121, 754 P.2d 168 (1988). Wyoming should now have settled this issue in Jones, 777 P.2d 54. The touchstone of Jones, 777 P.2d 54 was conscious prosecutorial impropriety by reference to Douglas, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074 and Namet, 373 U.S. 179, 83 S.Ct. 1151. Once that analysis is completed, I then consider the effect of an admission of guilt through a transfer process to the accused defendant. Jones, 777 P.2d at 60. The exchange here whereby the wife asked and was given the right to refuse to testify in open court could only serve to confirm her guilty knowledge as evidence of the guilt of her husband. The prejudice in this case was even more apparent and insidious than was the case when the two alleged uncharged coconspirators were called to the witness stand and refused to testify as described in Jones. It is apparent from close record review that the State brought Donna Engberg from Nebraska for the purpose of establishing a basis of unavailability to admit her prior statements as made to police officers under the purview of W.R.E. 804(b) if she chose not to testify or Engberg did not waive his privilege. Engberg's decision to withdraw suppression and release privilege was premised on a preference for her live testimony. Thereafter, when the trial court invoked her privilege by effectively excluding the provisions of the second sentence of W.S. 1-12-104, Engberg turned himself to hearsay as preferential to a record without any of her testimony by recognition of the intrinsic participation which other evidence had radiated about her. Trial events not only denied Engberg the right to call his wife for desired testimony, but created a prejudice by implication with the jury that her testimony would have been hostile since she was called and excluded as an apparent State witness in open court. With Donna Engberg thus called as the last and apparently decisive witness, to then have her openly invoke a privilege before the jury created inferences and innuendos of Engberg's guilt. Prejudice in the eyewitness identification preeminence of proof of the case cannot be doubted. Jones, 777 P.2d 54; Limbaugh, 549 So.2d at 583; State v. McGinty, 14 Wash.2d 71, 126 P.2d 1086 (1942); State v. Winnett, 48 Wash. 93, 92 P. 904 (1907). With reversal of guilt conviction on other bases, we avoid either review of this issue on the basis of plain error or retroactivity of application of a determined principle of Wyoming law. See for example, in federal law, Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334, reh'g denied 490 U.S. 1031, 109 S.Ct. 1771, 104 L.Ed.2d 206 (1989) and Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). Unless totally unexpected, any invocation by a witness of immunity or privilege should occur outside of the presence of the jury. Jones, 777 P.2d 54; State v. Smith, 116 Idaho 553, 777 P.2d 1226 (1989). [21] See also Jones v. State, 86 Md. App. 204, 586 A.2d 55 (1991).