Opinion ID: 2162009
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The prospective alibi.

Text: Dobson's trial counsel told the jury in his opening statement that he would present testimony establishing that, on June 6, 1978, Dobson was at a party in Baltimore and could not have been on the campus of Howard University at the time that Sawyer was robbed. During the voir dire proceedings to select the prospective jurors, counsel introduced three prospective alibi witnesses to the jury. These witnesses were Imogene (Jean) Harris, the mother of Dobson's child, Dr. Eric B. Dobson, a physician who is Sherman Dobson's brother, and Steve Cole, a cousin of Ms. Harris. Notwithstanding the representation made in his opening statement that Dobson was in Baltimore when the crime was committed, defense counsel did not call any of the alibi witnesses to the stand. At the beginning of his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor pounced on the defense's failure to produce the evidence that counsel had promised: Ladies and gentlemen, defense attorney talked about all this evidence that the government could have gotten. The government could have got this witness from over here and the government could have got this witness from over there and said this and said that. But, that's the same defense attorney who stood right here yesterday and told you, I'm going to bring in witnesses to say Mr. Dobson was somewhere else on June the 6th, 1978. Didn't he say that? He said it right to you. He stood right there and told you that. And, now, he's telling you a different story. He's saying now that Mr. Dobson was not in Washington, D.C. on June the 6th, 1978. But he told you, if you recall, yesterday that Mr. Dobson was in Baltimore on June 6th, 1978. Let's not talk about things on one side. Let's counterbalance and talk about what happened on the other side, too. You can't put all the weight on the government, can you? The defense did not object to this argument.