Court Opinion

ID: 9456671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:59:51.588919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:04.208415
License: Public Domain

SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON, III, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I join unreservedly in Parts I, II and III of Judge FAHY’S learned opinion. I agree, too, with the result reached in Part IV, and with much of the supporting reasoning; more specifically, I share three of the main Part IV conclusions unqualifiedly. Assuming his amenability to a subpoena, the uncalled informer, *236as a special agent for the Government in the criminal transactions alleged, was, I think, “peculiarly” available to the Government within the purview of the missing witness rule.1 Moreover, the informer’s testimony, it seems clear, would not have been merely cumulative.2 And in consequence of the informer’s recent relationship with the Government, it would appear that the right to invoke the rule was not waived by defense counsel’s refusal to attempt production of the informer as his own witness.3
In other respects, however, my resolution of the Part IV problem follows a somewhat different course. The comments which follow serve to indicate my views and the reasons why I cannot accept appellant’s missing witness argument.
I
The missing witness rule, where applicable, enables an inference that exerts impeaching though not probative force.4 “The nonproduction of evidence,” said Dean Wigmore, “that would naturally have been produced by an honest and therefore fearless claimant permits the inference that its tenor is unfavorable to the party’s cause.” 5 This is because “[t]he failure to bring before the tribunal some circumstance, document, or witness, when either the party himself or his opponent claims that the facts would thereby be elucidated, serves to indicate, as the most natural inference, that the party fears to do so, and this fear is some evidence that the circumstance or document or witness, if brought, would have exposed facts unfavorable to the party.” 6 By the same token, “the inference is based, not on the bare fact that a particular person is not produced as a witness, but on his non-production when it would be natural for him to produce the witness if the facts known by him had been favorable.” 7
It must follow, from this rationale of the rule, that the test for its application is the naturalness, under all circumstances, of an unfavorable inference from a party’s nonproduction of the witness. I certainly agree with Judge Fahy that the missing witness doctrine is not “a rule of broad or rigid application whenever an *237adversary fails to call a witness peculiarly within his power to produce who might have some knowledge of the facts involved.” 8 That is evident from judicial holdings that the doctrine does not apply where the witness is unimportant,9 or is biased against the noncalling party,10 or his testimony would be cumulative or inferior to testimony already utilized,11 or the testimony would be privileged.12 The principle reconciling these decisions is that an unfavorable inference cannot be justified unless it can be said with reasonable assurance that it would have been natural for a party to have called the absent witness but for some apprehension about his testimony. And “the party affected by the inference may of course explain it away by showing circumstances which otherwise account for his failure to produce the witness.” 13
I agree, too, that the trial judge has a supervisory role in missing witness eases. As in instances of other sought-after inferences, it is the court’s function to determine whether a jury could appropriately deduce from the underlying circumstances the adverse fact sought to be inferred, leaving it for the jury to say whether the inference actually ought to be drawn in the particular case.14 The noncalling party's explanation suffices, and the missing witness rule is properly rejected, where the trial judge is “satisfied that the circumstances thus offered would, in ordinary logic and experience, furnish a plausible reason for nonproduction.” 15 But the judge’s discretion has its normal limitations and, in my view, it cannot redeem a refusal to abide by the missing witness rule where its preconditions are plainly met and the failure to call the witness is unexplained or inadequately explained — in sum, it cannot shield an exclusion of an inference which under governing rules a party was rightfully entitled to utilize.
II
In the litigation at bar, as certainly in a great many instances of missing witnesses, there might have been reasons why the absent witness was not called. Here, as on other occasions, those reasons, if revealed to the court, conceivably might have dispelled any notion that the failure to call was an implied admission *238of weakness in the party’s case.16 Where there are such reasons, and they are produced and satisfy the trial judge on plausibleness, the judge should decline a request for a missing witness instruction, and should also forbid adverse comment to the jury on the absence of the witness.17
In the case before us, however, the Government did not justify its failure to call the informer18 Since only Collins, of the four narcotics agents, was an eyewitness to the drug transactions for which appellant was bn trial, it seems natural enough to infer that the Government would have called the informer but for a feeling that his testimony would leave something to be desired. He was the one witness who could have corroborated Collins’ testimony directly. No interest in maintaining the secrecy of his name or supposed address was manifested ; the Government made both available to appellant. These circumstances, it seems to me, were sufficient to lay an ample predicate for appellant’s invocation of the missing witness rule. When a party neglects an acceptable showing as to why he did not call the witness, his opponent, I believe, cannot be deprived of the benefits of the rule by mere assumption that the noncalling party may have had reasons sufficient to negate an adverse inference.
While I believe that appellant was entitled to the normal benefits of the missing witness rule, I nonetheless concur in affirmance of his conviction. The office of the rule is narrow, its scope is limited; it permits only an inference that the testimony of the uncalled witness would have been unfavorable to the noncalling party.19 As to any matter to which the absent witness could have testified, the inference may diminish the value of the noncalling party’s evidence, and may add strength to his opponent’s evidence, but that is its maximum effect.20 “The inference does not affect indefinitely the merits of a whole cause, * * * but affects specifically and only the evidence in question.” 21 Moreover, the inference does not substitute for proof; its reach is not equivalent to independent evidence of any fact otherwise unproved.22
Here the Government’s case, though partly circumstantial, was strong. There was Collins’ direct testimony as to the alleged transactions, supported indirectly but firmly by the testimony of two other agents. There was also the testimony of each of the four agents contradicting appellant’s alibi. An unfavorable inference from the informer’s absence conceivably might have reduced the impact of the Government’s proof that there was illegal drug trafficking on the occasions in question, but it could not have generated affirmative evidence that they did not occur.23 Such an inference might also have diluted the testimony that appellant was the trafficker, and at *239the same time might have aided the alibi, but hardly in decisive fashion. For in preference to the testimony of three alibi witnesses that appellant was not the offender, the jury accepted the testimony of four narcotics agents that he was; the jury accepted, too, the testimony of one of the agents that appellant twice peddled narcotics. With so much direct evidence to select from, the role of an inference would scarcely have loomed large. And with the jury fully cognizant of the informer’s collaboration with the agents in implicating appellant, it is problematical that it would have drawn an inference that the informer’s testimony would have disfavored the Government.
These, it seems to me, are the probabilities; and a decision as to whether judicial error engendered prejudice requiring reversal is necessarily an appraisal of the probabilities. The argument that prejudice flowed from the trial court’s refusal of the requested comment and instruction on the informer’s absence thus leaves me unpersuaded. Viewed realistically and balanced, the probabilities, in my judgment, do not favor appellant sufficiently to warrant reversal.24

. This conclusion draws support from United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 593, 68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948), where the facts were similar to those here, and from Stewart v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 278-279, 418 F.2d 1110, 1114-1115 (1969), where the problem was posed but ultimately dropped out of the case. See also Brown v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 269, 271 n. 3, 414 F.2d 1165, 1167 n. 3 (1969) ; United States v. Jackson, 257 F.2d 41 43-44 (3d Cir. 1958). As Judge Fahy explains (supra p. 232), Richards v. United States, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 197, 275 F.2d 655, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 815, 80 S.Ct. 1253, 4 L.Ed.2d 1155 (1960), presented a different situation.

. Aside from Agent Collins, the informer was the only eyewitness to the activities charged to appellant. By the same token, the Government’s case beyond Collins’ testimony was entirely circumstantial. Thus the informer was in excellent position to “elucidate the transaction,” e. g., Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021 (1893), by either confirming or disputing Collins’ version, as no other witness for the Government apparently could.

. I agree fully with Judge Fahy that a party bears no duty to his opponent to call a witness whose relationship to the latter forecasts uncertain and possibly damaging testimony. See, e. g., Mammoth Oil Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 13, 52, 48 S.Ct. 1, 72 L.Ed. 137 (1927).

. With the discussion in text infra at notes 5-7, compare the discussion in text infra at notes 19-22.

. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 285 at 162 (3d ed. 1940) (emphasis in original omitted). That we have accepted as the theory sustaining the missing witness rule. Stewart v. United States, supra note 1, 135 U.S.App.D.C. at 279, 418 F.2d at 1115 (supplemental opinion).

. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 285 at 162 (3d ed. 1940). See also Graves v. United States, supra note 2, 150 U.S. at 120-121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021. Compare Clifton v. United States, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 242, 247, 11 L.Ed. 957 (1846).

. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 286 at 166 (3d ed. 1940).

. Supra p. 233. See also Morton v. United States, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 329, 332, 147 F.2d 28, 31, cert. denied, 324 U.S. 875, 65 S.Ct. 1015, 89 L.Ed. 1428 (1945). where we pointed out “that evidence and witnesses [may] be sifted and selected with a view to economy of trial-time and the better understanding of the ease by the jury. No useful purpose is served by using a scattergun.”

. Brown v. United States, supra note 1, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 270-271 n. 2, 414 F.2d at 1166-1167 n. 2; Morton v. United States, supra note 8, 79 U.S.App.D.C. at 332 n. 11, 147 F.2d at 31 n. 11, quoting 2 Wigmore, Evidence § 287 at 168-169 (3d ed. 1940).

. Jarrell v. State, 251 Ala. 50, 36 So.2d 336, 341 (1948) (failure to call witness who had already testified for prosecution) ; Sterling v. McKendrick, 134 So.2d 655, 658 (La.App.1961) (failure to call adversary) ; State v. De Paola, 5 N.J. 1, 73 A.2d 564, 574 (1950) (failure to call wife, who was hostile).

. Brown v. United States, supra note 1, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 270-271 n. 2, 414 F.2d at 1166-1167 n. 2; Morton v. United States, supra note 8, 79 U.S.App.D.C. at 332 n. 11, 147 F.2d at 31 n. 11; Cote v. Palmer, 127 Conn. 321, 16 A.2d 595, 600 (1940) (failure to call eight-year-old child).

. Graves v. United States, supra note 2, 150 U.S. at 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021 (failure to call wife); Hopkins v. State, 11 Okl.Cr. 385, 146 P. 917 (1915) (failure to call codefendant).

. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 290 at 178 (emphasis in original omitted). See also Stewart v. United States, supra note 1, 135 U.S.App.D.C. at 279-280, 418 F.2d at 1115-1116 (supplemental opinion).

. See In re Dunbier’s Estate, 170 Neb. 541, 103 N.W.2d 797, 804 (1960) ; Lantini v. Daniels, R.I., 247 A.2d 298, 302 (1968) ; National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Eddings, 188 Tenn. 512, 221 S.W.2d 695, 697-698 (1949).

. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 290 at 178.

. Compare Stewart v. United States, supra note 1, 135 U.S.App.D.C. at 279-280, 418 F.2d at 1115-1116 (supplemental opinion).

. See id.

. Government trial counsel did allude to a feeling that the informer’s testimony was cumulative and that harm might befall him, but neither of these points was accepted by the trial judge as a basis for his ruling.

. E. g., Graves v. United States, supra note 2, 150 U.S. at 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 37 L.Ed. 1021; Wynn v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 64-65, 397 F.2d 621, 625-626 (1967).

. In re Dunbier’s Estate, supra note 14, 170 Neb. at 549-550, 103 N.W.2d at 804; National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Eddings, supra note 14, 221 S.W.2d at 698-699.

. 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 290 at 179 (3d ed. 1940).

. United States v. Roberson, 233 F.2d 517, 519-520 (5th Cir. 1956) ; Gafford v. Trans-Texas Airways, 299 F.2d 60, 63 (6th Cir. 1962) ; National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Eddings, supra note 14, 221 S.W.2d at 698-699. See also Annot., 70 A.L.R. 1326 (1931).

. That is because the defense offered no independent evidence challenging the drug transactions, as distinguished from the identity of the trafficker. See text supra at note 22.

. Compare Brown v. United States, supra note 1, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 272, 414 F.2d at 1168; Pennewell v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 333, 353 F.2d 870, 871 (1965). See also Gass v. United States, 135 U.S.App.D.C. 11, 19, 416 F.2d 767, 775 (1969).