Opinion ID: 1927370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Prosecutor's Comments and the Court's Instructions

Text: In his opening statement, the prosecutor told the jury that Deon Russell had enlisted an accomplice, a man named Kenneth Hahn, who has had his day in court. He said that Hahn and Russell had planned and carried out several firebombings at the Card residence, that Hahn had been arrested at the scene of the November 7 arson, and that Ms. Card had identified him as someone she had seen at the door on November 7 just before the fire was discovered. Despite these comments, the government at trial presented no evidence whatever connecting Hahn with any of the three firebombings. The jury never learned from any witness that Hahn had been arrested or identified on November 7, nor was he identified in any way as having been associated with the firebombings on October 13 and October 14; indeed, he was not even charged with any involvement in the October incidents. In his closing argument, the prosecutor argued for a guilty verdict on the theory that Russell had committed all three firebombings himself, but he also made repeated references to Kenneth Hahn's culpability for those attacks and his relationship to Russell. The prosecutor told the jury that even if Russell was not the person who had committed the November 7 arson, he could be convicted on the theory that he had aided and abetted Hahn. He said Russell would be responsible for the attacks as an aider and abettor because he was working together with his accomplice, Kenneth Hahn, to carry out that end, to attack Angela Card, using these Molotov cocktails and burning her house. The prosecutor added that although Ms. Card did not know Kenneth Hahn, he was the man that tried to set the house on fire ... and he was the man that turned himself in that day [November 7]. They [the police] brought him back, and [Ms. Card] identified him at that point. After a brief discussion of the law of aiding and abetting, the prosecutor said: [T]he key part I want to emphasize about [aiding and abetting] is [that] ... you don't have to do something to be held responsible for it if you are in that joint enterprise with somebody. So, in other words, even if he [Russell] didn't throw that Molotov cocktail through the front window on the first day and he didn't set the porch on fire on November 7th, he is still responsible for it. And that is because he was working together with his accomplice, Kenneth Hahn, to carry out that end, to attack Angela Card using these Molotov cocktails and burning her house. That's aiding and abetting. There was no evidence before the jury to support any of the prosecutor's comments about Kenneth Hahn, as the government concedes, [14] nor was there any evidence that Russell had aided and abetted Hahn (or that Hahn had aided and abetted Russell) in any criminal activity. In his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor reiterated his earlier point that Russell had personally committed the two October arsons, but he also repeated his suggestion that the jury could find Russell guilty on the alternative theory that he had aided and abetted Hahn: [W]e know Kenneth Hahn was involved because they got him red handed, cold busted, on November 7th at the scene of the crime. Well, how is Kenneth Hahn linked to all this? . . . He is linked to this through Deon Russell, his buddy, his accomplice, the man he was indebted to, indebted to. Why was he setting the house on fire? Why was he starting that fire at the back of the house? He didn't have any personal beef against her. There's no evidence of that in this case.      ... Let's say, just for the sake of argument, Kenneth Hahn did all three of [the firebombings] and then set the fire on the back porch. Does that mean [Russell] walks out of here? Uh-uh ... Hahn was doing this because Deon Russell put him up to it. That's why he was doing it.... He did it because Deon Russell wanted him to, the joint enterprise, the teamwork that you will hear about in the aiding and abetting instruction. That's what it was. The trial court, at the government's request, gave the standard instruction on aiding and abetting. [15] Defense counsel made a timely objection to the instruction, but the court overruled it, relying in part on the undisputed fact that Mr. Hahn was arrested on or about November 7 as a result of the fire that was set at 551 Randolph Street, Northwest. Defense counsel did not challenge or disagree with the court's statement, even though there was no evidence of this undisputed fact before the jury.