Opinion ID: 2328667
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Admission of Rowland's Oral Statement to the Police

Text: Metropolitan Police Lieutenant Tommy Musgrove testified that when Rowland consented to have his hands examined for gunpowder residue on the night of Hoyle's death, he made the comment, I know a little bit about evidence. [14] That comment was arguably incriminating; by suggesting that Rowland knew enough to remove any gunpowder residue from his hands before the police arrived, the comment neutralized the seemingly exculpatory fact that no residue was detected. The defense was surprised by Lieutenant Musgrove's testimony, which had not been elicited in Rowland's first trial. Rowland moved for a mistrial on the ground that the government had violated its obligations under Superior Court Criminal Rule 16 by not having disclosed his alleged comment to Lieutenant Musgrove in pretrial discovery. The government responded, inter alia, that Rowland's comment was outside the purview of Rule 16 because it was not a response to any police questioning. The trial court rejected that distinction; agreeing with Rowland, the court concluded that it made no difference under Rule 16 that Rowland had volunteered his remark. The court declined, though, to grant either a mistrial or Rowland's alternative request to strike Lieutenant Musgrove's testimony in its entirety. Instead, the court decided to strike only the testimony reporting what Rowland had saidrelief that Rowland contends was inadequate. The government has the better of the argument. Rule 16 does not require the government to disclose a defendant's oral statementin contrast to a defendant's written or recorded statementunless that statement was made in response to interrogation by a known government agent. [15] Spontaneous oral statements are not discoverable as of right under the Rule. See, e.g., United States v. Scott, 223 F.3d 208, 212 (3d Cir.2000) (collecting cases); United States v. Small, 316 U.S.App. D.C. 15, 24 n. 2, 74 F.3d 1276, 1286 n. 2 (1996). [16] Although the term interrogation is not defined in Rule 16, we may assume arguendo that it should be accorded an expansive interpretation encompassing not only express questioning, but also ... any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response . . . . Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); see Small, supra . Even so, the record does not support Rowland's claim on appeal that his alleged comment to Lieutenant Musgrove was the product of interrogation. Rowland did not make that claim in the trial court. There he acquiesced in the characterization of his comment as something he volunteered without being asked. Perhaps his comment was an incriminating response to Lieutenant Musgrove's request that he allow his hands to be swabbed, see footnote 14, supra, but if so, it was an unsought and unforeseeable response, much like the statements at issue in Scott, supra . [17] Rule 16 therefore did not require the government to disclose the comment that Rowland made to Lieutenant Musgrove. As the government did not violate the Rule, no sanction at all should have been imposed, and the trial court certainly did not err in denying Rowland's motion for a mistrial or alternative relief.