Opinion ID: 1494221
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Improper Vouching by Lyons

Text: Capano also contends that Lyons' testimony taken as a whole improperly vouches for Gerry's credibility. This issue involves two related questions: (1) whether Lyons' testimony improperly attested to Gerry's credibility and (2) whether the State used Lyons' credentials as an experienced lawyer and former federal prosecutor to bolster Gerry's testimony. At the outset, we note that the trial court admitted Lyons' testimony based on its impact upon the state of mind of Gerard Capano at the time he made the ensuing statement [about Tom's request to use his boat]. [43] Nevertheless, it is clear that the State presented the testimony to explain why Gerry did not disclose this information until after he began to negotiate an arrangement with prosecutors. [44] Thus, the credibility of Gerry's testimony was at issue, not his state of mind at the time of his final disclosure. As a general rule, a witness may not bolster or vouch for the credibility of another witness by testifying that the other witness is telling the truth. [45] The State argues that the trial court did not err in this respect because Lyons did not vouch for Gerry and did not express an opinion on the veracity of Gerry's testimony. But the cases are clear that improper vouching includes testimony that directly or indirectly provides an opinion on the veracity of a particular witness. [46] In the present case, Lyons testified that he warned Gerry: (1) about the possibility of a lie detector test; (2) about Gerry's obligation to make full disclosure; and (3) not to hold anything back from the federal prosecutors. [47] In our view, these three points made by Lyons, when taken together, created a substantial risk that the jury would conclude that Lyons' admonitions to Gerry induced him to tell the truth to the federal prosecutors and hence to the jury. It is implicit in Lyons' testimony that Lyons believed his own admonitions to have been effective. Thus, this testimony is a subtle and indirect version of vouching for Gerry's credibility. The problem is compounded by the State's elicitation from Lyons of his credentials as an experienced lawyer and former federal prosecutor. This testimony highlights the potential that Lyons' status as an experienced lawyer may have imparted credibility to Gerry's testimony  owing not to Gerry's believability but to the credentials of the lawyer-witness vouching for him. [48] Given Lyons' experience with federal prosecutors, a jury would be likely to infer that Gerry did not disregard Lyons' emphatic directive to make full disclosure. In Graves v. State [49] we reversed a conviction in part because the lawyer for two prosecution witnesses improperly vouched for them. Before the witnesses took the stand, the witnesses' lawyer appeared as a witness for the State and testified that he had urged the witnesses to cooperate with investigators and to tell the truth. [50] The lawyer also testified extensively about his impressive credentials and about specific honors that he received as a criminal defense lawyer. [51] In that situation, this Court was concerned that the lawyer's recital of his professional attainments and his standing in the legal community could serve but one purpose: that a lawyer of his standing would not represent clients who were not truthful. [52] In the present case, the State did not exalt Lyons' credentials in the same blatant manner as in Graves, but Lyons did testify that he worked as a federal prosecutor for eight years and had been in private practice since 1982. [53] He also testified extensively about his dealings with federal prosecutors on Gerry's behalf. This was a subtle but clearly effective method of permitting Lyons to vouch for Gerry's truthfulness in his disclosures to federal prosecutors. There is thus a concern that the jury may have inferred that a lawyer of Lyons' experience may have believed that Gerry's testimony was credible. Although it was error to permit Lyons to testify in a manner that amounted to vouching, compounded by using Lyons' credentials to bolster Gerry's credibility, the admission of Lyons' testimony was harmless in view of the entirety of the evidence.