Opinion ID: 2317416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Attacking/accusing defense counsel of lying

Text: DeRosa contends that [d]uring the presentation of witnesses and in closing argument, the prosecutor tainted the jury and imposed his personal view of the evidence by unfairly attacking defense counsel and accusing him of lying. Aplt. Br. at 60. DeRosa raised this same claim on direct appeal. The OCCA outlined the background facts relevant to the claim before rejecting the claim on the merits: The challenged remark, which was actually a question, must be understood within the context in which it arose. Daniel Wilson, who shared a cell with DeRosa in the LeFlore County Jail during October of 2000, testified for the State as a jailhouse informant.FN83 He testified that although DeRosa did not initially talk about what he had done, he eventually started coming out with more and more of it, to both Wilson and another cellmate. FN83. On cross-examination, Wilson testified that he and DeRosa shared a cell together for part of September of 2000, though DeRosa was not even arrested until October 4, 2000. Most of the story that Wilson ascribed to DeRosa was consistent with the testimony of Castleberry and White.FN84 According to this story, DeRosa planned the crime, and he and Castleberry entered the home after Mrs. Plummer came to the door. After they were inside, they began demanding the money and stuff. DeRosa held a knife to Mr. Plummer, while Castleberry held a knife to Mrs. Plummer. Everything was going according to plan, until Mrs. Plummer started rebelling and fighting back. Castleberry then started stabbing her; and when Mr. Plummer tried to come forward and help his wife, DeRosa went ahead and done what he had to do.FN85 FN83. On appeal, DeRosa correctly points out that parts of Wilson's account are inconsistent with other evidence presented at trial. For example, Wilson's story describes DeRosa as hanging back, while Castleberry initially went to the Plummers' door alone; names Castleberry, instead of DeRosa, as the person who initially stabbed Mrs. Plummer; and refers to both men taking a shower afterward. Defense counsel was free to point out these inconsistencies at trial. FN85. Wilson testified that DeRosa told him that after they killed the Plummers and stole their truck, they met Scotty White and put the truck in the water. Wilson described DeRosa as real cocky that no one was going to find any evidence, because they had taken the knives, one of which was a fold-up knife and the other of which was a regular straight knife, put them in a sock, and thrown them into the water, off to the side of the truck. According to Wilson, DeRosa stated that they ate at Taco Bell afterwards, with money taken from the Plummers, and that everything went perfect until White came forward. Defense counsel attempted to establish that Wilson had agreed to testify, and had probably enhanced his testimony, in order to obtain a favorable plea bargain on numerous charges he had previously been facing.FN86 Wilson testified that he had not been given and did not expect to receive any special treatment in his own cases, based upon either the information he provided or his testimony against DeRosa. [footnote omitted] In fact, Wilson maintained that he first contacted law enforcement about DeRosa on January 22, 2001, the very day that he entered a plea bargain resolving his three different cases. FN85. The exhibits entered into evidence at trial indicate that Wilson had previously been facing charges in three separate LeFlore County cases. In CF-2000-147, he was charged with one count of Larceny of a Motor Vehicle, as well as four other counts. Although the original information is not included in the record, Wilson admitted at trial that the four other counts were two counts of Assault and Battery with a Dangerous Weapon, one count of First-Degree Burglary, and one count of Kidnapping. In CF-2000-331, Wilson was charged with one count of Feloniously Pointing a Firearm. In CF-2000-385, Wilson was charged with a felony count of Running a Road Block, as well as four misdemeanor counts (Eluding a Police Officer, Driving Without a Driver's License, False Report of Theft of a Vehicle, and Obstructing an Officer). A second page, alleging a prior felony conviction for Escape From County Jail, was filed in all three cases. It should be noted, however, that the sole felony count in CF-2000-385 was dismissed at the preliminary hearing in that case, on October 3, 2000before DeRosa was even arrested. Hence only four misdemeanor counts were at issue in that case. On this date Wilson did resolve his three cases in a very favorable manner.FN88 Wilson testified that as he sat in the hallway of the LeFlore County Courthouse, after entering his pleas, he saw Shawn Ward walking down the hall and told Ward that he might have something that could help in DeRosa's case and that he knew where the knives were. Ward, who was the main investigator in the Plummer case, had previously been a police officer and knew Wilson from arresting him in the past. According to Wilson, Ward asked him why he was in the courthouse and the status of his cases, but did not pursue his offer of information or set up any further meeting.FN89 Wilson testified that he did not have any further contact with Ward until he wrote him a letter, from the Lawton Correctional Facility, on June 14, 2001.FN90 FN88. Exhibits admitted into evidence at trial indicate that on January 22, 2001, Wilson pled guilty to Larceny of a Motor Vehicle, in CF-2000-147, and Feloniously Pointing a Firearm, in CF-2000-331. The four other counts in CF-2000-147 were dismissed; the second page was dismissed in both cases; and CF-2000-385, with its four remaining misdemeanor counts, was dismissed entirely. Pursuant to the plea bargain resolving these cases, Wilson was sentenced, on the two counts upon which he was convicted, to seven years imprisonment, with the first two in DOC custody and the other five suspended, to be run concurrently. Wilson testified at DeRosa's trial that he believed he had about fifty-something days remaining on his incarceration at that time. FN89. On re-direct examination, Wilson testified that the written plea agreement, summarizing the deal he had obtained, was completed and signed before he ever saw Ward that January afternoon. FN90. In the letter, which was admitted as an exhibit at trial, Wilson wrote that he was contacting Ward because he had not heard from him and that he was still available to help if they needed him. The letter also stated, I still need those dates before I could sit down and state all that right. The letter noted that Wilson had about six months left on his sentence. Defense counsel cross-examined Wilson vigorously, and often sarcastically, about the numerous serious charges he was facing before his plea bargain; the things he had been accused of doing; the possible lengthy sentences on those charges, particularly in light of his prior conviction; other prior convictions and the effects of drug usage;FN91 the fact that Wilson was represented by the same attorneys who represented Scotty White; the fact that the prosecutor who dismissed the various charges against him was also one of the prosecutors in DeRosa's case; and the fact that Wilson's ultimate sentence was only seven years, with only two in actual custody. Defense counsel openly mocked Wilson's claim that his favorable plea deal was unrelated to his current testimony.FN92 He also suggested that Wilson's request for dates, in his letter to Ward, was part of a State effort to help Wilson craft his testimony against DeRosa. FN91. Wilson admitted to drug convictions in California and Arkansas during his testimony. FN92. Defense counsel asked, And we're to have itto understand that you have no deals in this case at all, right?. He also chided that Wilson must have the world's best attorney. After the lengthy testimony of Wilson was completed, the State called Shawn Ward to the stand. After going through his background and qualifications, the district attorney asked, How often do you commit conspiracies to get people thrown in the penitentiary?. Defense counsel immediately objected; and at the bench conference that followed, the district attorney defended his question by asserting that defense counsel had spent the last half hour suggesting that there was a conspiracy between his office and Daniel Wilson.FN93 The court ultimately found that the State was entitled to put on evidence to rebut the defense inference that there was a plea agreement, but that the word conspiracy was too argumentative. FN93. Defense counsel responded to the district attorney's assertion that he had implied there was a conspiracy, saying, Well, I didn't say it though. A heated exchange between the two attorneys followed, in which the court had to remind them to address the court and not each other. Ward then testified about the circumstances surrounding his conversation with Daniel Wilson on January 22, 2001.FN94 Ward flatly denied that he intervened in any way to influence Wilson's plea bargain or his sentence. Ward noted that he saw Wilson in the courtroom hallway again some time later, on the day Wilson was there for sentencing. Ward testified that Wilson said DeRosa was being very open with him, but that Wilson wanted Ward to find out the date that another inmate left the LeFlore County Jail, and that the dates mentioned in Wilson's letter was really just a reference to this request.FN95 FN94. Ward testified that he did talk to Wilson that afternoon and that Wilson said he was in court settling some charges. Ward testified that although Wilson claimed to have information regarding DeRosa, Ward told him that he did not want to talk to him until Wilson had settled his own cases. FN95. Ward testified that Wilson told him that DeRosa did not start opening up until after inmate J.R. Green was gone. Wilson had earlier testified that DeRosa was afraid of Green. The district attorney's questioning of Ward that immediately followed is the subject of DeRosa's claim on appeal. Q. So this letter that you got from him refers to dates was where you provided the specific dates of this crime so Daniel could make up his story? A. No. Q. In fact, the date was the day that Glover Green left for LARC? A. That's exactly the date I provided him. Q. So the questions we heard Mr. Rowan ask a while ago are not true? A. No, sir; they are not. Q. So it's a good questions [sic] who's lying in that At that point defense counsel objected, sought a bench conference, and moved for a mistrial. The trial court, without a bench conference, immediately sustained the objection and admonished the jury to disregard the last statement by the D.A. The court then overruled the defense motion for a mistrial. DeRosa acknowledges the general rule in Oklahoma that a jury admonishment to disregard a prejudicial remark cures any error. DeRosa correctly notes, however, that comments by a prosecutor that are unusually egregious and so prejudicial that they would undoubtedly taint the verdict are an exception to this general rule. [footnote omitted] In such cases, even an admonishment by the trial court could be inadequate to cure the error, and a defendant could be entitled to relief on appeal. In order to determine whether an improper remark or improper testimony rises to this level of prejudice, this Court must evaluate both the improper statement(s) and the evidence presented in the case as a whole. [footnote omitted] The State's arguments, (1) that the district attorney did not even present[ ] a complete thought, because the challenged question was interrupted by an objection, and (2) that the district attorney did not directly call defense counsel a `liar,' are not well-taken. While it may be strange to refer to a question as not true or to suggest that a person is lying due to the way that he or she is asking questions, the clear import of the district attorney's questions was to accuse defense counsel of lying; and DeRosa's jury would have understood this. As such, the district attorney's behavior was clearly improper. [footnote omitted] The prosecutor was entitled to rebut the inference that Wilson's testimony had been influenced by a secret deal with the State and to suggest that the jury should not be misled in this regard. He should not, however, have resorted to a personal attack on defense counsel.FN99 FN99. This Court recognizes that previous and subsequent remarks by defense counsel also crossed the line of appropriate representation, but such remarks did not justify corresponding inappropriate behavior on the part of the State. This Court likewise rejects the State's argument that by asserting a particular theory or defense, defense counsel put his own credibility at issue. Nevertheless, this Court is confident that the district attorney's remarks did not influence or taint the verdict in this case. [footnote omitted] Despite defense counsel's suggestions to the contrary, Daniel Wilson's testimony was not critical, or even particularly significant, to the State's case against DeRosa. The core of the State's case was the testimony of the two men with whom DeRosa plotted and accomplished the robbery/murder of Curtis and Gloria Plummer, i.e., Eric Castleberry and Scotty White. The compelling testimony of these men was fundamentally consistent and was corroborated by the physical evidence. DeRosa's conviction was further supported by the testimony of other persons to whom he had made incriminating statements, including Daniel Wilson.FN101 Yet even if Wilson's testimony were entirely eliminated from DeRosa's trial, this Court has no doubt that the result of the trial, both the convictions and the death sentences, would have been the same. DeRosa has not shown that his right to due process, or any other constitutional right, was prejudiced by the district attorney's remarks. Hence his claim is rejected in its entirety. FN101. These persons include Chris Ford, Officer David Leal, Justin Wingo, and Daniel Wilson. DeRosa I, 89 P.3d at 1141-45 (internal paragraph numbers omitted). In this federal habeas appeal, DeRosa argues that [t]he OCCA's determination that Wilson's testimony was not particularly significant [wa]s an unreasonable determination. Aplt. Br. at 62. The prosecution, he argues, clearly characterized Wilson's testimony as critical, so much so it said DeRosa's defense was to `get rid of Danny Wilson's testimony somehow because Danny Wilson's testimony cooks his. . . goose.' Id. (quoting Tr. at 552). A review of the entire trial transcript, however, establishes that DeRosa's arguments are baseless. To be sure, the prosecutor, during first-stage oral arguments, did argue that defense counsel needed to get rid of Danny Wilson's testimony somehow because Danny Wilson's testimony cooks his client's goose, and the way he's chosen to get rid of it is to say that one of my assistant district attorneys conspired with one of my investigators to get his client. Tr. at 552. But the prosecutor's purpose in doing so was not to assert that Danny Wilson was the prosecution's key witness, but rather simply to counter defense counsel's assertion that there was some type of conspiracy or agreement between Wilson and Ward, whereby Wilson provided false testimony to assist the prosecution. Indeed, as the OCCA reasonably noted in rejecting this claim, it is quite clear from reviewing the trial transcript that Wilson was a relatively minor witness, and that his testimony was by no means crucial. Instead, the key testimony came from Castleberry and White. Thus, as the OCCA concluded, it is clear that the outcome of both the guilt and sentencing phases of trial would have been the same had Wilson not testified.