Opinion ID: 2654926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Defense Cross-Examination and Evidence

Text: Appellants claimed they were not present when Knight was killed and were being scapegoated for a murder that Holmes actually committed with other individuals.8 Appellants cross-examined Holmes vigorously. They impeached him with the lies and inconsistencies in the stories he told the police following his 7 The MAC-10 apparently had been thrown from the car just before it was stopped. Appellant Gilliam and a third man were with English in the car at the time. 8 Daniels and English presented alibi witnesses. Arnold Marshall testified that he saw Daniels and a woman drive out of the Tradewinds Club parking lot early on the morning of January 5, 2006, in a silver or white Nissan. Marshall said he saw the pair again later that morning on the highway. Tennille Young, who was dating English in January 2006, testified that they left the Tradewinds in her car and that English was with her at the time of Knight‘s murder. 10 arrest, and they explored Holmes‘s motive to curry favor with the government in order to secure the benefits of his plea agreement, i.e., a reduced sentence. Holmes admitted that the police had pressured him and promised him leniency. He agreed that the detectives, unhappy with his initial answers, began to ―feed‖ him ―details about their version of the event‖ and were the first to suggest that appellants were the perpetrators. Holmes confirmed that it was a detective who suggested the outlines of the story he eventually told (―And then she tells you, look, you could simply have been giving some friends a ride and it went haywire; right?‖). Before Holmes implicated appellants, he gave the detectives interrogating him the name of another friend from the 17th Street neighborhood, James ―Whitey‖ Kelly, as someone with whom he had been to the Tradewinds Club. A defense witness (Arnold Marshall) testified that Kelly, who was deceased by the time of trial, was at the Tradewinds Club the morning of January 5, 2006. A second defense witness, Vincent King, testified that Holmes told him it was he and Kelly who had killed Knight.9 Holmes denied this.10 9 King, who acknowledged that he, Holmes, and appellants were ―all part of the same crew‖ from the 17th Street neighborhood, testified that he had seen Holmes with a MAC-10 prior to January 2006, and that Holmes had used the weapon to commit an armed robbery with him. King further testified that Holmes told him in January 2006 that he and ―Whitey‖ had shot Knight (―Little Ant‖) on (continued…) 11 C. Holmes’s Cell Phone Records and the Denial of a Continuance English‘s counsel undertook to disprove Holmes‘s testimony that Daniels and Gilliam met back up with him and English at 18th and A Streets to rearm after the shooting in Maryland. On cross-examination, Holmes reiterated his testimony that Daniels called him on his cell phone to find out where he and English had gone. Holmes confirmed that Daniels and Gilliam ―knew where to go‖ as a result of that phone call. Holmes further testified that his cell phone number at the time was (202) 327-3690. Thereafter, in the defense case, English introduced the call detail records for that number through Sprint Nextel employee Bruce Levine. Levine testified that the number was registered to Holmes and in use on the (continued…) 37th Street, and that Holmes said he had used the MAC-10 and was trying to sell it because it was ―dirty.‖ 10 As noted below, Holmes‘s cell phone records indicated that he was in telephonic contact on the night of the homicide with Damian Turner, another friend from 17th Street. English‘s counsel attempted to ask Holmes whether, sometime before January 5, 2006, he had seen Knight assault Turner. The trial court sustained the government‘s objection to this inquiry on relevance grounds, rejecting appellant‘s argument that it bore on a possible third-party perpetrator defense and Holmes‘s possible motive to falsely implicate appellants in order to protect Turner from suspicion. (Turner, like Kelly, was deceased by the time of trial.) 12 morning of January 5, 2006. Contradicting Holmes‘s testimony, the call detail records showed no call at all between Holmes and Daniels that morning.11 On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Levine whether he had obtained the records for another phone number, (202) 277-1049. Levine said he had not been asked to check that number and had not done so. The prosecutor next asked Levine if he knew whether Holmes had ―any other cell phone with any other carrier.‖ Levine had ―no idea.‖ This was on a Thursday, and the court did not sit on Friday. On Monday morning, English‘s counsel brought up the prosecutor‘s cross-examination of Levine with the court. Stating that ―the jury certainly could have been left with the impression [from the prosecutor‘s question about the number 277-1049] that Mr. Holmes had more than one phone in operation‖ in January 2006 (negating the 11 Instead, the records revealed a series of calls between Holmes‘s cell phone and the phone numbers of two other people. Between 2:33 a.m. and 3:05 a.m. on January 5, 2006, the only number Holmes‘s phone called, or received a call from, was that of Holmes‘s girlfriend Latoya Richardson. In addition, between 9:30 p.m. on January 4, 2006, and 1:31 a.m. on January 5, 2006, there were nineteen calls between Holmes‘s phone and a number registered to his friend Damian Turner. Thereafter, between 3:21 a.m. and 4:44 a.m., there were four more calls to or from Turner‘s number. There were no other calls that morning involving Holmes‘s phone. 13 significance of Levine‘s testimony regarding Holmes‘s 327-3690 number), defense counsel informed the court that she had subpoenaed the records for the number the prosecutor had mentioned. Those records, counsel proffered, showed that the 2771049 number was registered to Holmes but was not in operation at all between December 19, 2005, and January 18, 2006. Daniels therefore could not have spoken with Holmes on that number on the morning of January 5, 2006. Counsel stated that she wanted to put this information in evidence to dispel the (mis)impression the prosecutor‘s question could have left with the jurors. There was, however, an obstacle that needed to be overcome. As counsel explained, the custodian of the records for the 277-1049 number, a Sprint Nextel employee named Laura Spencer, would be unable to appear before Wednesday, which was a holiday, meaning the witness would not be able to testify until Thursday morning. But closing arguments were scheduled to start before then, on Tuesday. Counsel therefore asked to be permitted to introduce the call records for 277-1049 with Spencer‘s authenticating affidavit (which had been obtained) in lieu of having to call Spencer to the stand. The phone records had been provided to the prosecutor. However, because the prosecutor refused to stipulate to their contents or waive the custodian‘s presence, the court denied the defense request. It also refused defense counsel‘s alternative request that the court instruct the jury 14 specifically that the prosecutor‘s question regarding the second phone number was not evidence. Faced with the rejection of those two alternatives to live testimony, counsel asked to be given time to call the records custodian to the stand on Thursday. The court denied this request as well, stating ―it‘s a small point in the trial‖ and that it could not ―wait that long.‖12 When court resumed the next morning (Tuesday), English‘s counsel renewed her request to introduce the records showing that Holmes could not have used a cell phone with the number 277-1049 to tell Daniels where to meet up with him and English on the morning of January 5, 2006. Daniels and Gilliam now joined in this request. Appellants‘ counsel argued that it was critically important to their defense to correct the misleading implication of the prosecutor‘s question and ensure that the jury did not assume (untrue) facts not in evidence—namely, that Holmes could have been called by Daniels on a second cell phone with the number the prosecutor had specifically mentioned. In opposition, the prosecutor rejoined 12 After this, the trial continued. The defense presented three witnesses and rested shortly before noon on Monday. The prosecutor announced that the government would not present a rebuttal case. The rest of the day was taken up with discussion of instructions and other matters the court and counsel needed to address in preparation for submitting the case to the jury. 15 that the defense had cross-examined Holmes extensively and this was just ―further impeachment.‖13 The court inquired why the defense could not ―get the witness here today,‖ and English‘s counsel explained that the relevant document custodian was in Kansas and that Bruce Levine was unable to provide the necessary testimony in her place.14 Counsel pointed out that it was not until Levine‘s cross-examination that she became aware of the 277-1049 number. As an alternative to bringing in the custodian of records to testify on Thursday, English‘s counsel proposed that the prosecutor could phone Ms. Spencer, ask her ―whatever questions she wants,‖ and then submit her responses in an affidavit. The prosecutor did not respond to that suggestion. The court stated that it could not admit a hearsay affidavit over objection and that ―[t]he real 13 Moreover, the prosecutor insisted, she had ―a good faith basis to ask‖ Levine whether he had checked the records of Holmes‘s second cell phone number, because she ―knew of the existence of more than one phone‖ even though she ―didn‘t have the records.‖ Thus, it appears the prosecutor did not know at the time of the cross-examination whether Daniels in fact had called Holmes on his second cell phone on January 5, 2006. It is unclear whether Holmes had told the prosecutor that Daniels called him on that phone. 14 Counsel elaborated that the witness availability problem was a function of the merger of Sprint and Nextel and the different locations of the two companies‘ phone records. 16 question is should we wait two days?‖ Saying that it did not perceive the phone record evidence to be ―critical,‖ the court then ruled that it would not ―delay the trial.‖15 The rest of Tuesday morning was taken up with further discussions between counsel and the court regarding jury instructions, the verdict form, the defendants‘ motions for judgment of acquittal, and other issues. At 11:59 a.m., the jury entered the courtroom. Closing arguments commenced a few minutes later. At 4:25 p.m., after the prosecutor and counsel for Gilliam and Daniels had delivered their closing arguments, the jury was excused with instructions to return on Thursday morning (as the court would not be in session on Wednesday, a holiday). When court resumed on Thursday morning, English‘s counsel made a lastditch attempt to salvage her cause. She asked the court to allow her to present the live testimony of the phone records custodian that morning via the Superior 15 Defense counsel took one more stab, arguing that the court had the power to admit the phone records and Spencer‘s affidavit authenticating them as a sanction for the prosecutor‘s asking of a question that implied facts not in evidence. The court rejected that argument because it saw no fault on the government‘s part that would require any sanction. Finally, the court again refused counsel‘s alternative request for a specific curative instruction. The court said it simply would give the general instruction to the jury after closing arguments that questions are not evidence, ―and you [i.e., defense counsel] can argue that.‖ 17 Court‘s video conferencing facilities. Counsel said this would take only a few minutes, allow the government to cross-examine the witness, and ―we would still close today,‖ with the government having the opportunity to respond to the custodian‘s testimony in its rebuttal argument. ―[T]he fact that no phone call was made,‖ counsel again emphasized, ―is an imperative point in our case, as the whole case rests on the credibility of . . . Byron Holmes.‖16 Counsel for Daniels and Gilliam joined in the request. The prosecutor opposed it, arguing that the point was not material (―if it‘s even relevant‖), and (perhaps somewhat inconsistently) that ―to allow [the defendants] to reopen and highlight this particular piece of evidence at this juncture [would] cause the Government to reconsider certain decisions we made strategically with respect to our rebuttal case.‖17 The court expressed the view that, after ―a three-week and two-day trial,‖ it did not think the jury would ―focus‖ on the phone call issue ―unless you emphasize 16 If the phone call from Daniels to Holmes never happened, counsel elaborated, Holmes‘s testimony ―falls apart,‖ because it was the phone call that allegedly brought the defendants and Holmes together at English‘s house to proceed with the charged conspiracy. Counsel pointed out that the meeting at English‘s house was one of the overt acts alleged in the conspiracy count of the indictment. 17 The prosecutor did not disclose what those strategic decisions were or proffer any evidence that would have countered the defense proof that Holmes did not receive a call on his cell phone from Daniels. 18 it in your closing argument.‖18 Furthermore, the court said, reopening the case would set up ―a possible need‖ for the government to present a case in rebuttal, which ―would extend the trial [an]other day, maybe more.‖ Adhering to its prior rulings, the court denied the defense request to present the testimony of the phone records custodian that morning via a video conference hook-up. In her closing argument, English‘s counsel hammered on Holmes‘s testimony about getting a phone call from Daniels and declared that the phone records showed that the call never happened: During that twenty-minute period where you‘d have to have this phone call so you would know where to meet up so you could discuss what happened, and pile into [Holmes‘s] car, what are there? There are five phone calls. These all are Latoya Richardson [Holmes‘s girlfriend]. . . . So that time period where he says this is how we all got together, because I made a phone call and we discussed where to meet, that didn‘t happen. That‘s a lie, because his story is a lie. Because most likely, he didn‘t even go anywhere near 17th Street. He just drove right to the scene. 18 Actually, in their closing arguments on Tuesday, the attorneys representing Gilliam and Daniels already had focused the jury on the issue. Each defense counsel argued that the phone records showed Holmes had lied when he testified to having been called by Daniels. 19 To rebut the prosecutor‘s suggestion that Holmes had another cell phone for which the defense had not presented call records, counsel argued: Now, when you look at these phone records, you will know that that‘s Byron Holmes‘s phone, and he was using it all night long, and who he was calling, because there‘s not going to be a question of did he have some other phone out there. But you were left potentially with the impression that maybe Byron Holmes has two phones. Well, if there‘s another phone out there that he was using, and they have phone numbers and somehow they can prove that, don‘t you think that [they] would bring–they‘d bring that before you? Wouldn‘t that be important evidence for you to hear? Don‘t fall for the innuendo of questions that aren‘t evidence. . . . [T]he judge will instruct you that questions are not evidence. In rebuttal, the prosecutor expressed disdain for the defendants‘ focus on ―the lack of . . . corroborating evidence in the phone records that shows this call from John Daniels.‖ The government, she simply asserted, had no need to prove how the defendants ―got in contact with each other between the scenes; whether it was on [Holmes‘s] phone, on [English‘s] phone, on any—there‘s no allegation [in the indictment] as to there‘s this contact, and you have to believe that.‖ Following the closing arguments and a break for lunch, the court instructed the jury. Its instructions included a sound general instruction that lawyers‘ 20 questions are not evidence.19 Thereafter, at 3:52 p.m. on Thursday afternoon, the jury retired to commence deliberations.