Opinion ID: 2755292
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Factual Basis for New Law

Text: During the State’s case-in-chief, the prosecutor called one of the victims of the defendant’s crimes, Gabriel McGuire, to the witness stand. Having been advised that securing Mr. McGuire’s trial testimony would likely be problematic, the following exchange took place: Prosecutor: I think we should make the effort to bring him [McGuire] in . . . . Court: What, I’m going to have him . . . drag him here? Defense counsel: Yes. Prosecutor: I think that’s because the problem, if he refuses to come, behave himself, which certainly the Court needs to inform the jury that we tried to get him in here, but he wouldn’t come in. Defense counsel: Maybe we should excuse the jury, bring him in here, find out if he’s going to take the Fifth. •••• Prosecutor: I ask that the jury be excused and bring in Mr. McGuire . . . . but the fact of him being drug in here by the officers and then drug in here screaming, that is not . . . that 1 (...continued) defendant at trial as the shooter. 2 shouldn’t be done in front of the jury. . . . what matters is what he says on the stand . . . . •••• Defense counsel: As far as the jury, they have a victim. The jury is entitled to see that. The Court: It is a different thing once he’s in there, and if he refuses to testify I think that’s a different thing than dragging him in here. •••• Defense counsel: Well, they [the jury] will not be able to see it. That’s relevant to my client . . . . The Court: . . . . Why drag in a person? •••• The Court: No . . . I’m not going to do it in front of the jury. The trial court excused the jury from the courtroom after which the following was placed into the trial record: Defense Counsel: . . . I would like the record to reflect that I think it’s strongly prejudicial to my client that the jury had to be excused because the State didn’t want them [the jury] to see [Mr.] [] McGuire brought into the courtroom, and how, you know, as the trier of fact they get to examine everyone’s demeanor, which includes the way they [witnesses] walk; how they’re presented; their defiance to the Court; their defiance to the prosecutor; their defiance to the defense attorney. All that’s relevant. We’re talking about a self-defense case here, and we can’t even get in the daggone victim. How is that not relevant to my client? And the . . . character of the victim[?] 3 Prosecutor: . . . I think this is a court security issue. We do not need a fight in front of the jury, and what takes place until the witness gets on the witness stand is not evidence. What happens on the witness stand is evidence . . . . but I think we’ve got a major court security issue here. We do not want any fighting. We don’t want a mistrial. . . . This is a matter of whether we can physically put the body on the stand, and we might not be able to, Judge. The Court: Well, and just for the record, I’ve been informed by the chief bailiff that it’s a security issue. Thereafter, the record reflects that, as predicted, the courtroom bailiffs had to physically strong-arm a recalcitrant Mr. McGuire into the courtroom: Mr. McGuire: Get off me, man. How can you (inaudible) in the fking courtroom, man? I don’t care. I’m not coming in here, man. The Court: Okay. You need to bring him over here to be sworn in. Right here. Okay. Right there. Now, I’m going to bring in the jury. Prosecutor: Judge, I object. . . . This is not evidence. He physically should not be in the courtroom with the jury. I think this is a court security issue, and I would say hold him in contempt and get him out of here. I do not want to see the officers tackle him in front of the jury. That’s not evidence. Court Reporter: Mr. McGuire, is your last name spelled M-C­ G-U-I-R-E? Mr. McGuire: (No response.) •••• The Court: Sir, are you willing to take the stand? Mr. McGuire: No, I’m not. 4 Upon confirmation of his refusal to testify, the trial court held Mr. McGuire in contempt of court and ordered that he be retained in the regional jail so that the defendant could call him as a witness in his case-in-chief the following day. The trial court warned Mr. McGuire that if he again refused to testify or cooperate, he could be subject to additional contempt proceedings. Mr. McGuire promptly suggested that the trial court “might as well do that now, because I ain’t coming out here and testifying, period.” Disinclined to accept Mr. McGuire’s suggestion, the trial court directed that he be removed from the courtroom, after which the following was placed in the trial record: Prosecutor: Your Honor, may the record reflect that the witness, Gabriel McGuire, refused to take the stand, not even to testify, and physically resisted the officers in the Court’s presence . . . and had to be held by two officers for the safety of all persons in this courtroom? The Court: And I just want to say for the record that I was informed by the chief bailiff that he appears to be a danger to the jurors if he’s forced to take the stand. . . . •••• Defense counsel: As someone who’s aggressive. A man who won’t even take the stand under threat of being held in jail, and physically . . . we saw him hit his head against the wall over here; physically resisted coming in here, and was aggressive with the bailiffs. I think his character is definitely a pertinent trait as this point. The Court: It’s not a question of whether his character is a pertinent trait, but it’s a question of whether self-defense has been. •••• 5 Prosecutor: Judge, it’s not a pertinent trait until the defense shows that this was self-defense, and just because a person has a bad history and just because they’re physically resistant to testifying . . . is not sufficient evidence for self-defense. The defense has not raised any evidence that this is a self-defense case yet . . . . The trial court then made the following findings with regard to having held Mr. McGuire in contempt of court: The Court: . . . [F]or the record . . . there was an attempt to bring him [McGuire] in here. He made it very clear that he would not cooperate; that he would refuse to testify, and wouldn’t even take the oath; and there were two bailiffs that had to restrain him when he was in the courtroom. Several other bailiffs who were standing around, and I noticed it appeared, based on his behavior and his demeanor, that he would actually pose a danger to the jurors, and a court security issue if he were to get here. I was notified there would be a fight in front of the jury. Defense counsel: And, Your Honor, he didn’t . . . he just refused to cooperate. He didn’t plead the Fifth. The Court: No, he did not plead the Fifth. It is clear from this exchange that defense counsel recognized that Mr. McGuire was not invoking the Fifth Amendment privilege; rather, he “just refused to cooperate.” Upon their return to the courtroom, the trial court advised the panel that Mr. McGuire had been subpoenaed to testify; that he refused to take the oath or to testify; that the court did not feel that he could be physically forced to take the oath or to testify; and that the court was holding him in contempt. 6 Later, when counsel and the trial court discussed the anticipated appearance of Mr. McGuire the next day for the defendant’s case in chief, the following exchange occurred: Prosecutor: . . . [W]hen he calls Mr. McGuire as a witness . . . either we do this outside of the presence of the jury . . . I think it is unjust to have a police officer holding him, gagging him, on the stand him fighting, and it’s just not proper. The guy can take the Fifth . . . . but you’re not supposed to call a witness to the stand if that witness is going to take the Fifth. The Court: Based on what I saw, I don’t think we would ever get to that point . . . Prosecutor: Right, and I don’t think we’re going to get to that point either. Again, the trial court recognized that Mr. McGuire would never reach the point of invoking the privilege if he continued in his refusal to take the witness stand and be sworn. The following morning, and over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court excused the jury before efforts were made to escort Mr. McGuire to the witness stand—this time as a witness for the defense. After Mr. McGuire was brought into the courtroom, the following transpired: The Court: Are you prepared to testify today? Mr. McGuire: I plead the Fifth. •••• Defense counsel: He don’t [sic] have the Fifth. 7 Notwithstanding defense counsel’s protestation that Mr. McGuire did not have a Fifth Amendment privilege, the trial court granted immunity to Mr. McGuire in its continuing effort to secure his testimony for the defense. The effort was unsuccessful because Mr. McGuire continued in his refusal to take the witness stand: Mr. McGuire: . . . I have no intentions of testifying. I am not taking the stand and I am not testifying. The Court: Are you saying that you refuse to take the stand? Mr. McGuire: That’s what I’m saying, I refuse to take the stand and I refuse to testify. The Court: Are you saying - - so you are no longer taking the Fifth. You’re saying you refuse - - Mr. McGuire: I refuse to talk, period, that’s what I’m saying, I refuse to talk. I refuse to take the stand and I refuse to testify. The Court: Would you raise your right [hand] to be sworn in? Mr. McGuire: No, I am not.2 2 The defendant may have benefitted from Mr. McGuire’s refusal to take the witness stand because he averted Mr. McGuire’s likely denial of having a knife or threatening the defendant in any manner. In addition, the trial court repeatedly informed the jury of Mr. McGuire’s contumacious behavior when efforts were made to have him take the witness stand: While the jury was out, Mr. McGuire was brought into the courtroom in custody. He was physically restrained. Both sides sought to call him as a witness . . . they both have a right to compel witnesses to come before the Court. As with yesterday, Mr. McGuire refused to take the oath (continued...) 8 The foregoing colloquy indisputably demonstrates that the issue in this appeal was not the Fifth Amendment. Significantly, following the trial court’s award of immunity to Mr. McGuire in its effort to secure his testimony, Mr. McGuire merely took up the recalcitrant mantra he had voiced the day before when called as a witness by the prosecution: “I refuse to take the witness stand; I refuse to take the oath; and I refuse to testify in any manner.” Mr. McGuire did not dispute the trial court’s statement “so you are no longer taking the Fifth.” In short, there is simply no factual basis for the majority to adopt a new rule of law regarding a non-party’s witness’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege. This is absolutely not a Fifth Amendment case. 2 (...continued) and said he would refuse to testify. He does not have grounds to refuse to take the stand and he does not have grounds to refuse to take the oath. However, my powers are limited to holding him in contempt until he testifies and because . . . he is here for purposes of testimony only from federal custody, I don’t have much force or influence in terms of doing that . . . . The bailiffs have determined yesterday that it was a Court security issue in bringing him here in the presence of the jury and that it would be a safety issue for those involved. The record further reflects that during closing arguments, defense counsel was allowed to describe Mr. McGuire’s behavior as bailiffs endeavored to get him to the witness stand, including the fact that he beat his own head against the wall; to argue that Mr. McGuire is a man known for violence; to allege that Mr. McGuire is a “belligerent gang member;” to suggest that Mr. McGuire’s refusal to testify was a sign that he was the aggressor; and to reference a rumor that Mr. McGuire had beaten a murder charge on a prior occasion. 9