Opinion ID: 1886931
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Potential Testimony of Sandra Brown

Text: Prior to trial, counsel for both parties responded in the negative when the court asked whether either of them knew if any witnesses to be called might have Fifth Amendment privilege issues. After the trial began the next day, however, the prosecutor informed the court that there was a potential Fifth Amendment problem as to appellant's wife, Sandra Brown, who was likely to be called as a defense witness. The prosecutor said that if Sandra Brown took the stand, he would seek to cross-examine her about whether she ever offered money to Ms. Mayhew so that Mayhew would drop the charges against appellant, since such an offer might be an obstruction. The court, with the apparent concurrence of both parties, [11] subsequently ruled that even if she says that never happened, she needs to be counseled. Later in the trial, the court appointed an attorney to advise Sandra Brown about her Fifth Amendment rights. After conferring with Mrs. Brown and appellant's counsel, Mrs. Brown's attorney told the court that there was a Fifth Amendment issue and that he had advised Mrs. Brown of what this meant, but that she was having trouble making a decision whether she wishes to waive that or not. Because of Sandra Brown's sudden hesitancy to testify, defense counsel was no longer certain that he would call her as a witness and suggested that some sort of immunity for her might be considered. Recognizing the importance of this request, the court said: If you are going to request that, then obviously it would take some time for the government to even discuss that with her and it wouldn't be something we could anticipate ruling briefly Monday morning.... If there is an issue of considering immunity, if you are requesting to call her, and that would end that issue, I want to allow the government adequate time to consider where that leaves us, and they may want to interview her and further investigate. The next day, which was a Friday, defense counsel stated that Sandra Brown would be called as a witness and added, She's an essential witness to my case. The court replied that to trump Sandra Brown's Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and enable her to testify, counsel must show that the testimony he sought to elicit was material, exculpatory, non-cumulative, and unobtainable from any other source. See Carter v. United States, 684 A.2d 331, 340 (D.C.1996) (en banc) (citing United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 887 (2d Cir.1992)). Counsel proffered that Sandra Brown would testify that: (1) she had known Ms. Mayhew for many years (the two having had contact, words, and occasional altercations with each other); (2) she had seen appellant driving the Mazda; (3) she herself had ridden in Ms. Mayhew's Mazda while appellant was driving; and (4) appellant had keys to the Mazda. The court remarked that counsel's initial proffer was incomplete, but that it would defer ruling on the matter until more specific facts could be obtained from Mrs. Brown. After Sandra Brown arrived in court later that day, defense counsel told the court that Mrs. Brown would waive her Fifth Amendment privilege and ... take the stand and testify as to what she knows. Counsel felt that this resolved the privilege dilemma, and the prosecutor agreed, provided that he would be allowed to conduct a full cross-examination. At the same time, the prosecutor informed the court ex parte at a bench conference [12] of a new possible line of cross-examination concerning Sandra Brown's alleged perjury in a different case, also involving appellant. [13] The prosecutor said to the court, I'm not sure yet if I can use that. I just got the information.... It's information that I have that I'm going to try to come up with some way that I might be able to use it.... I wanted to tell Your Honor so that I didn't surprise the court with it. In the ensuing discussion, the court voiced uncertainty about the basis of Sandra Brown's Fifth Amendment privilege because it had not been clearly communicated. Mrs. Brown's attorney then said that Mrs. Brown would waive her privilege with regard to the obstruction of justice allegation, but that she was unsure whether she would also waive her privilege as to the potential criminal liability for UUV as a passenger in the Mazda, as well as the possible perjury in the earlier case. The court decided to give Mrs. Brown the weekend to decide whether, and to what extent, she would waive her Fifth Amendment privilege: If she decides that she does wish to waive her Fifth Amendment right, I'll ask her a series of questions with her counsel present here, out of the presence of the jury, and we'll resolve that, and then you'll be able to call her if she does waive. If she doesn't, at that point, it's going to be incumbent [on] the defense to establish the more refined proffer and overcome the four-part [ Carter ] test. Neither party objected. The following Monday, Sandra Brown invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to riding in the car during the time it's alleged to have been stolen and the possible perjury on a prior occasion. In response, defense counsel made a specific proffer under Carter: I do believe that if Mrs. Brown were to testify, she would state that she had seen [appellant] in the car in 1997. I don't believe I could give the court a month. I could say warm weather and the children were out of school. So I could say May or June, maybe. [14] Defense counsel then conceded, I don't know that I could meet the fourth prong of Carter, unobtainable from any other source. After hearing further from both parties, the court found that the testimony that defense counsel wanted to elicit from Sandra Brown was not exculpatory, but possibly inculpatory, [15] and that in addition it might be obtainable from another source. The court then advised counsel, If there is another area that you offer [Sandra Brown] for, or if it develops ... we could consider that. Defense counsel never objected to the court's ruling and did not call Sandra Brown thereafter to testify on any other issue.