Opinion ID: 2295861
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: interference with defense efforts to interview government witnesses

Text: Appellants filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, based on the actions of Alan Grip  one of the hostages at the District Building  who had cancelled an appointment to be interviewed by defense counsel. [16] The trial court conducted a pretrial hearing. See Gregory v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 140, 143, 369 F.2d 185, 188 (1966) (a prosecutor's actions which effectively deny&box; defense counsel access to the [government] witnesses except in his presence violate due process), after remand, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 317, 410 F.2d 1016, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 865, 90 S.Ct. 143, 24 L.Ed.2d 119 (1969). At this hearing, [17] Grip testified, on direct examination, that after he had agreed to meet with defense counsel King, see note 16 supra, he telephoned prosecutor Linsky to ask three questions: (1) whether the law obligated him to speak with defense counsel (Linsky answered that there was no such obligation), (2) whether it would damage the government's case if Grip declined to speak with any defense attorney (Linsky replied no), and (3) whether Grip should seek advice from an attorney (Linsky said that this would be a good idea). Thereafter, Grip consulted with an attorney, who advised that it would not be in Grip's best interest to speak with defense lawyers. Grip further testified that no member of the United States Attorney's Office had ever advised him not to talk with defense attorneys or investigators. [18] On cross-examination, Grip testified that I had second thoughts about talking to defense attorneys and because I did I felt that I should get some legal advice about whether or not I should. [19] Later, the following colloquy took place: MR. HOGE [counsel for Rahman]: Did you have an impression that Mr. Linsky or Mr. Tuohey or anybody else associated with the government would prefer that you not talk to any of the defense counsel or the investigators? GRIP: I never got that impression one way or the other. MR. HOGE: On the other hand, even though you didn't have that impression from Mr. Tuohey or Mr. Linsky, you decided not to talk to defense lawyers and investigators but to talk to the media. Is that correct? GRIP: That's correct. Appellants contend that they are entitled to a new Gregory hearing because the trial court unduly restricted cross-examination during the first inquiry. Specifically, they complain that the trial court improperly sustained the government's objection to cross-examination about Grip's willingness to speak about the takeover to members of the news media. [20] Defense counsel had explained, to no avail, that he was attempting to establish that Grip had been willing to talk with the media but not the defense, and that justice under the Gregory case requires a close examination of his reasons for discriminating between the two. Counsel, in other words, was attempting to establish in any possible way that the prosecutors had blocked access to a government witness. We do not agree with appellants' contention. This court has held, apropos of Gregory, that due process is not violated when government witnesses for private reasons and absent government interference refuse to discuss the case with defense counsel. United States v. McDougald, D.C.App., 350 A.2d 375, 378 (1976). The government established, through direct and cross-examination, that the prosecution had not directed Grip to refuse to speak with the defense attorneys; nor had the prosecutor otherwise interfered with defense access to Grip. The court permitted extensive cross-examination as to the prosecutors' actions. [21] In fact, two counsel were permitted a second round of questions. Given such thorough inquiry into the government's actions, coupled with Grip's unshaken testimony that he perceived no government interference, we agree with the trial court's ruling that the defense effort to inquire into Grip's contacts with the media was irrelevant to the Gregory inquiry; it was directed instead to Grip's private reasons for declining to speak with defense counsel. McDougald, supra at 378. Understandably, defense counsel must have felt frustrated by the unwillingness of government witnesses to speak with them. After two months of effort, the twelve defense lawyers and twelve investigators had been able to obtain a statement from only one witness, while many of the hostages who were later to testify at trial had given extensive interviews to the media. Counsel, therefore, attempted to use the Gregory hearing to discover whatever they could, to the point of asking repetitious [22]  and occasionally argumentative [23]  questions. Near the end of the hearing, the trial court granted defense counsels' request for additional argument concerning their reasons for objecting to the court's rulings on the propriety and admissibility of defense questions. Counsel argued that they wanted to test Grip's credibility. The prosecutor emphasized once again that Grip's personal motives for talking with the press but not defense counsel were irrelevant to the Gregory issue. We conclude, on the basis of McDougald, supra at 378, that the trial court properly limited cross-examination of Alan Grip during the Gregory inquiry. We reject appellants' request for another hearing; their rights were protected by the first one. [24]