Opinion ID: 2317416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Comments regarding Scotty White

Text: DeRosa contends that his right to a fair trial was violated when the prosecutor informed the jury during first-stage closing arguments that codefendant and prosecution witness Scotty White had no deal with the prosecution. DeRosa presented this same claim to the OCCA on direct appeal and the OCCA rejected it on the merits: DeRosa also challenges certain prosecutorial statements regarding Scotty White. During cross-examination, defense counsel asked White whether he had a deal, to which White responded, What do you mean?. White then acknowledged that the original first-degree murder charges against him had been reduced to accessory after the fact, but testified that he had not yet pled guilty and that his attorney was trying to work a deal for him. It was clear to everyone at trial that White's assistance and limited involvement in the crime had led to the reduction of his charges and that White was hopeful that his cooperation would be taken into account at his eventual sentencing. Nevertheless, DeRosa objects to portions of the following remarks, made during the district attorney's first-stage closing arguments. And Scotty was the wheel man, and the defense again is going to say that Scotty White was testifying up here because he's scared to death of what kind of deal he's going to get. Well, he doesn't have a deal. The charge is reduced on him to accessory. He was driving the car. He never went in the house. He's going to get what he's going to get. In a few weeks, maybe a jury like you is going to sit here and tell him what he's going to get. But there's no deal. He's facing up to ninety years in the penitentiary, and yet, he testified, and he testified truthfully to the core elements of the case. Mr. Rowan is going to call him a liaralready hasand he's going to say he took the stand and lied to save his own rear. But the fact is if you look at the statements that Scotty White has given, . . . the core facts about what happened have always been the same. DeRosa asserts that saying Scotty White doesn't have a deal was misleading and amounted to improper bolstering, and also objects to the suggestion that White's charges were reduced because of his limited involvement. This Court finds nothing improper in the prosecutor's statement that White doesn't have a deal. The fact that White did not have a plea deal at the time of trial, though he admittedly hoped to make one, was apparently true, and it was appropriate for the prosecutor to note this fact. The suggestion that White's charges were reduced due, at least in part, to his limited involvement was likewise accurate and not misleading. Furthermore, the fact that White had cooperated and was testifying in the hope that it would help reduce his ultimate criminal liability was clear to everyone and was not obscured by the prosecutor's remarks. There was no prosecutorial misconduct here. DeRosa I, 89 P.3d at 1148 (internal paragraph numbers and footnotes omitted). In this federal habeas appeal, DeRosa asserts that he has rebutted by clear and convincing evidence the OCCA's conclusion there `apparently' was no deal with White at the time of trial. Aplt. Br. at 51. According to DeRosa, the prosecutor knew there was a deal and he in fact reduced White's charges to accessory after-the-fact prior to . . . DeRosa's preliminary hearing despite the fact White's admitted actions clearly made him responsible for the murders as a principal. Id. DeRosa argues that [w]hen [the prosecutor] argued `there's no deal,' he knew White had kept his agreement to testify against . . . DeRosa, and also knew he had, at least tacitly, agreed to reward White with a favorable recommendation as to his sentence. Id. Lastly, DeRosa asserts, [o]n January 14, 2002, less than two months after . . . DeRosa was sentenced, White pled guilty to the two accessory charges and was sentenced to two concurrent 25 years [sic] sentences, with the last 7 years of each sentence suspended, and the prosecutor signed off on White's plea agreement. Id. at 50. Contrary to DeRosa's assertions, he has not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence the OCCA's finding that there was no evidence of a deal between White and the prosecutor at the time of trial. To be sure, it was uncontroverted that the prosecutor reduced White's charges prior to DeRosa's trial. But the reasons for doing so appear clear: the substantial, if not overwhelming, evidence established that White merely acted as a driver for DeRosa and Castleberry. Further, although White may have, at the time of trial, been hopeful of receiving a favorable deal with the prosecutor, there is simply no evidence that a deal existed at the time of trial. See United States v. Molina, 75 F.3d 600, 602 (10th Cir. 1996) (The mere fact that . . . witnesses were subsequently allowed to plead on favorable terms is not evidence that plea agreements were secretly reached prior to the witnesses' testimony and improperly withheld from the defense.). Instead, the evidence indicates only that White, with the prosecutor's agreement, pled guilty to the accessory charges at some point after DeRosa's trial. Moreover, as the OCCA noted, DeRosa's trial counsel was able to cross-examine White at trial about his hope for a favorable deal, and thereby placed White's credibility at issue before the jury. Notably, however, White's testimony was corroborated by a substantial amount of other evidence, including the testimony of Castleberry. Thus, in sum, the OCCA reasonably concluded that the prosecutor did not engage in misconduct in denying the existence of a deal with White.