Opinion ID: 671803
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insinuating Questions

Text: 15 During Sauer's trial, the prosecutor questioned one of Sauer's witnesses, Barbara Cooper Baker, about the violent past of her ex-husband, Bill Cooper, and about whether she had ever told anyone that Sauer molested her daughter. Sauer was also questioned about his relationship with Bill Cooper and the likelihood that the Coopers' daughter would accuse Sauer of abuse in light of her parents' close relationship with Sauer. Sauer alleges that this questioning deprived him of a fair trial because it improperly suggested to the jury that Sauer was associated with a criminally violent person (Bill Cooper), and because the questions improperly insinuated that Sauer molested the Coopers' daughter. The state court found that the prosecutor's questions created irrelevant and possibly misleading implications, but it also found that the answers to the questions and the instructions to the jury alleviated any harmful effect. We agree. 16 The prosecutor's questions that insinuated that Sauer molested the Coopers' daughter were improper. See United States v. Davenport, 753 F.2d 1460, 1463 (9th Cir.1985). In Davenport, the prosecutor asked the defense witness Did you ever tell Mary Mabes that the defendant had told you he wanted you to help him rob the Wells Fargo Bank? Prejudice to the defendant was created by the question, even though the witness answered no. Although the witness' answer defended her own credibility, the answer did nothing to contradict the insinuated wrongdoing by the defendant. Id. 17 Unlike Davenport, the prosecutor's improper questioning here does not require reversal of the conviction. The insinuations were defused by the answers to the questions and the court's attempted curative instructions. Thus, although some of the questions were improper negative pregnant questions, they were harmless. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1717-18, 1722 (1993) (trial errors, which are errors that occur in the presentation of the case to the jury, are subject to the harmless error analysis, which on collateral review is assessed for a substantial and injurious effect or influence on the jury's verdict). 18 Barbara Cooper's responses to the prosecutor's insinuating questions did not leave unjustified innuendos dangling before the jury: 19 Q: Did you ever tell Samora Braley that Bob Sauer had touched your daughter Teresa's bottom and breast and that you or your son, the one who was killed, had to tell him to quit doing that? 20 A: No. 21 Q: You deny ever knowing about Bob Sauer molesting your daughter, Teresa? 22 A: No. He didn't molest my daughter, Teresa. 23 Q: And you've never told anybody that he has. 24 A: No. 25 Had there been no follow-up question to the first question, Davenport would have been directly on point. However, Barbara Cooper's answer to the second question eliminated the improper innuendo made in the first. Thus the danger in Davenport, that an uncontradicted covert insinuation would be conveyed to the jury, was not presented here. 26 Likewise, insinuations arising from any improper questioning of Sauer were also contradicted. The prosecutor asked Sauer about children he knew in the neighborhood other than the four girls testifying against him. One girl identified was Teresa Cooper. The prosecutor asked: 27 Q; So, little Teresa Cooper would not be very likely to accuse the man who had given her mother a car, and had worked to get her father out of jail ... [of] sexually molesting her, would she? 28 Sauer did not answer this question because his attorney's objection to the question was sustained, and the court did not give a curative instruction. However, the prosecutor asked moments later: Mr. Sauer, are you saying that these little girls, [including Teresa Cooper] ... have never been molested by you? Sauer answered Yes. 29 Thus, any improper innuendos were explicitly refuted by Cooper and Sauer. Unlike in Davenport, the questions did not succeed in leaving the jury with uncontradicted insinuations of a propensity for child molestation. 1 30 Sauer also argues that questions about Bill Cooper's violent nature were improper because they insinuated to the jury that Sauer associated with violent people. Most of the questions about Bill Cooper were asked to expose Barbara Cooper's biases as a witness on behalf of Sauer; these were proper. And even if any of these questions were improper, they were harmless. The questions about whether Bill Cooper was a violent man constituted less than one page of the trial transcript. Moreover, they were unrelated to any of the elements of the crimes with which Sauer was charged, and in light of the strong evidence of Sauer's guilt, they could not have had an impact on the jury's verdict. See Brecht, 113 S.Ct. at 1722. 31 Sauer was not subject to such prejudice and fundamental unfairness by the questioning that his conviction requires reversal. Any erroneous questioning was harmless because it did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Id. The district court did not err by denying Sauer's petition for habeas corpus on these grounds.