Court Opinion

ID: 9650052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:21:54.917164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:17.683540
License: Public Domain

SCHWELB, Associate Judge,
concurring:
The case against Sanders was overwhelming. There was sufficient truthful evidence to indict him. He was later found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and justly so. Under these circumstances, I agree with the majority that the conviction should not be reversed in the exercise of our supervisory power. Bank of Nova Scotia, - U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988). I write separately, however, to emphasize my view that the handling of this case before the grand jury was so troubling that more pejorative adjectives come to mind.
Officer Dubeau told the grand jury, under oath, and in response to a juror’s question, that there was a positive paraffin test linking the gun recovered on Sanders' escape route to the robbery. In fact, there was no paraffin test and no positive test of any kind. The way in which this testimony came to be given would make any reasonably objective observer wince. I can only hope that it represents a departure from a more reliable norm.
According to the prosecutor’s proffer during trial, Officer Dubeau had heard “somebody” say at the robbery squad that “they were going to do a test on the defendant’s hands.” He thought that he later received information from “somebody,” that the test had been conducted and that the results had been positive. The prosecutor continued:
Who he [Dubeau] heard that from, at this point of time, he cannot say.
This melange of rumor and assumption became unqualified sworn testimony against the defendant before the grand jury. The prosecutor, who would be expected to know if he had so powerful a piece of artillery in his arsenal as a paraffin test, said nothing at the time and never checked to determine if this spectacular addition to his case was authentic.
The trial judge, who heard Officer Du-beau’s trial testimony, found that there was no willful deception. That finding was based in part on the judge’s observation of the officer’s demeanor, and we cannot second guess him.
The government’s obligation, however, goes beyond avoiding deliberate perjury. A man’s liberty was at stake. Indeed, Sanders faced life imprisonment. To transpose an apt precept from another area of the law,
the arbitrary quality of thoughtlessness can be as disastrous and unfair to private rights and the public interest as the perversity of a willful scheme.
Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F.Supp. 401, 497 (D.D.C.1967); aff'd sub nom. Smuck v. Hobson, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 408 F.2d 175 (1969). The conversion of barely recalled and sourceless hearsay, without qualification, into testimony under oath, goes well beyond thoughtlessness. It reflects a lack of concern as to whether the evidence against a “guilty” defendant is true or false.
On the facts in this record, I am satisfied that the individual aggrieved by the presentation of an imaginary positive paraffin test was guilty of the crimes for which he *348was indicted and of which he was convicted. He suffered no legal prejudice as a result of being indicted, in part, on the basis of worthless testimony. To avoid the indictment, conviction and incarceration of some innocent person in the future, however, .1 hope that the United States Attorney and the police authorities will take this incident seriously,1 look carefully into what happened here, and do whatever they can to ensure that evidence presented by the government to the courts and juries of this city will be truthful and reliable.

. In what must be characterized as a resort, if not to situational ethics, then at least to opportunistic characterization, the government has eschewed, in its brief, the familiar talismanic recitation that the witness is an "experienced police officer.” Cf. In re D.J., 532 A.2d 138, 143 (D.C.1987). Rather, it has described Officer Du-beau, who created a positive paraffin test out of station house gossip, as "inexperienced." One does not need dozens of years on the police force to be more careful and more accurate than that.