Court Opinion

ID: 9494148
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:30:40.987235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:14.904143
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially.
While I concur in the result the court reaches today, I am deeply troubled about the testimony of the officer that gives rise to the primary allegation of error.
There actually was a fingerprint, and the officer told Encee that his matched. The officers did not have Encee’s fingerprint. The officer said “this is often a technique that we use while interrogating suspects to get their reaction.” The officer admitted that he lied about the fingerprint either on the dope, or somewhere around it, and Encee was shocked when he said he had his fingerprints.
This was followed by the assistant district attorney’s question: “You mentioned his demeanor. How did you take that, his reaction?” The officer answered, “His refusal to deny the fingerprint, it appeared guilt — it appeared to imply guilt on his part.”
I would be remiss to fail to comment on this conduct of the officer in testifying, and the admitted lie. In a close case, this could create significant problems for the prosecution.
I also have troubling concerns that justice would have been better served had the objections been dealt with more promptly at trial rather than just before the case was submitted to the jury.