Court Opinion

ID: 9493205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:01:10.108857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:42.664551
License: Public Domain

WILKINSON, Chief Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. I do so because I believe a district court must have broad discretion not to permit a tainted witness to testify.
The district court acted to protect the integrity of the trial proceedings before it. In the face of the court’s sequestration order, Michael Rhynes’ attorney directly related to a defense witness the earlier testimony of a significant prosecution witness. The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding this to be a violation of its sequestration order or in excluding the testimony of the tainted witness in the aftermath of the defense attorney’s clear violation of the order. By finding an abuse of discretion, this court has invaded the province of the trial court and impaired the ability of district judges to preserve the integrity of the truth-finding process.
I.
The relevant facts of this case are straightforward. The district court issued a sequestration order at the outset of this multi-defendant criminal trial, the text of which is set forth in Judge King’s opinion. During the testimony of defense witness Corwin Alexander, it came to light that Rhynes’ attorney, Michael Scofield, had discussed with Alexander the prior testimony of prosecution witness D.S. Davis. While on the stand, Davis had implicated Alexander in Rhynes’ drug dealing activities. Davis’ testimony thus threatened to undermine the credibility of Alexander’s exculpatory testimony on Rhynes’ behalf.
Once Alexander indicated that he had heard about Davis’ prior testimony, the government promptly objected. At the subsequent bench conference, Scofield admitted that he had specifically told Alexander about Davis’ testimony but protested that he did not think that conversation violated the sequestration order. The district court found that Scofield had violated the order and that his conduct was unprofessional. The court then excused the witness and instructed the jury to disregard his testimony. After a recess, Scofield conceded that he had violated the sequestration order and described what he should have done instead so as not to run afoul of the order. Following a proffer of the remainder of Alexander’s testimony, the court stood by its original ruling and noted that Scofield’s proffer “would certainly lead this judge to conclude that my Rule 615 order was violated as to the testimony of many witnesses.”
In light of these circumstances, the district court properly found that Scofield had violated the sequestration order. As Judge Niemeyer explains in his opinion, Scofield’s conduct directly violated the court’s sequestration order, as Rule 615 admits of no exception that entitles attorneys to act as couriers of prior testimony to prospective witnesses. The district court should be commended, not chastised, for refusing to recognize an exception to Rule 615 that does not exist and for acting to preserve trial proceedings as a means of ascertaining truth.
Trial courts are not required to stand idly by while attorneys circumvent court orders in the name of professional privilege. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that “[i]f truth and fairness are not to be sacrificed, the judge must exert substantial control over the proceedings.” Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 87, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976). This is exactly what the district court did here. The court was confronted with a multi-defendant criminal conspiracy and was thus on heightened alert to the risk of conduct such as witness coaching and the tailoring of testimony. The sequestration *329order was aimed at preventing precisely these ills from infecting the trial.
Scofield’s conduct, however, utterly thwarted the sequestration order. A sequestration order is “a product of common sense and its purpose is obvious.” United States v. McMahon, 104 F.3d 638, 644 (4th Cir.1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). It has no conceivable object other than to prevent prospective witnesses from knowing the testimony of prior witnesses before taking the stand themselves. See United States v. Leggett, 326 F.2d 613, 613 (4th Cir.1964) (per curiam). Yet Scofield’s actions accomplished this prohibited end as surely as if Alexander had heard Davis’ testimony in the courtroom himself. This was a matter of no small concern to the district court. Davis’ testimony was extremely problematic for Alexander, because Davis had linked Alexander to Rhynes’ drug-dealing activities. Foreknowledge of Davis’ testimony would enable Alexander to counter these allegations with greater credibility, specificity, and force. The district court was understandably troubled when it learned that Scofield had related Davis’ testimony to Alexander. The court was not compelled to countenance Scofield’s conduct any more than it was required to permit Alexander to hire a courtroom scribe to record prior testimony, see McMahon, 104 F.3d 638, or read trial transcripts of what earlier witnesses said, see Miller v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 650 F.2d 1365 (5th Cir.1981).
Nor did the district court’s ruling impair Scofield’s ability to discharge his professional obligations to thoroughly prepare his witnesses. It should go without saying that attorneys do not require a privilege to violate valid court orders in order to serve their clients with competence and zeal. To argue that the district court’s ruling im-permissibly ties attorneys’ hands is both gross overstatement and a red herring. Indeed, Scofield himself commendably acknowledged to the district court that attorneys may fully prepare witnesses without revealing the details of prior testimony in contravention of a sequestration order:
Your Honor, as I told you in chambers, I now realize that the proper thing for me to do in interviewing Alexander and preparing him to testify was that I could have asked him all the details of whether he had been a dealer and whether he had done drug deals with Michael Rhynes and that sort of thing without telling him that Davis had said that he had done that.
While it is tempting to dismiss this explanation as part and parcel of a compulsory mea culpa, Scofield’s words in fact speak for themselves. And there is nothing wrong with expecting attorneys, as officers of the court, to respect the boundaries that trial courts establish. Scofield should have realized previously that his conduct would frustrate the court’s order. He also could easily have asked the district court to clarify the scope of its order before he pressed the envelope. Violation of a sequestration order that the defense itself had requested understandably disturbed the district court.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Alexander’s testimony. It is well settled that a trial court’s choice of remedy when a sequestration order has been violated is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion. See, e.g., United States v. Cropp, 127 F.3d 354, 363 (4th Cir.1997); Leggett, 326 F.2d at 614; United States v. Avila-Macias, 577 F.2d 1384, 1389 (9th Cir.1978).
Before today, there was “no precedent in which we[had] over-turned the decision of a district judge to exclude a defense witness when the violation was plainly the fault of the defendant or defendant’s counsel.” Cropp, 127 F.3d at 363. Indeed, we have traditionally reserved the exclusion remedy for precisely those situations where, as here, it is the party or his counsel who causes the infraction. See id.
For example, in Cropp, we found no abuse of discretion in a situation where, as *330here, “the right to present a defense ha[d] come into direct conflict with the protection against tainted testimony.” Id. In that case, it became apparent during the testimony of defense witness Chris Carter that defendant Monte Mosley violated the sequestration order by talking to Carter before Carter took the stand. This court noted that “[although Mosley denies it, it is possible that Mosley in fact told Carter that there had been previous testimony that Carter had purchased crack from Mosley on numerous occasions.” Id. Even though this court believed that the district court “would have been well advised to employ a lesser sanction” and “should perhaps have more closely examined Carter in voir dire,” we nonetheless declined to take the unprecedented step of overturning the district court’s exclusion remedy on abuse of discretion grounds where the defendant or his counsel was at fault. Id.
We should likewise refuse to upset the district court’s exercise of its discretion in the instant case. Defense counsel was plainly the cause of the violation and admitted as much at trial. As noted earlier, Davis was the single most problematic witness from Alexander’s point of view, so it was undoubtedly to Alexander’s advantage to know Davis’ testimony before taking the stand. Although the district court did not conduct a voir dire of Alexander, it did receive a proffer of Alexander’s testimony. After listening to this proffer, the district court saw no reason to rescind its exclusion remedy, but rather was concerned that the violation of the sequestration order may have been even more far-reaching than it originally appeared. Given these circumstances, I simply cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. What should be a simple and straightforward matter of upholding a trial court’s evidentiary ruling with respect to tainted testimony has become an exercise in appellate mischief.
II.
The majority interposes appellate courts into the most sensitive aspects of trial management. It is for good reason that evidentiary decisions are committed to the discretion of the district court. Cf. General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997); United States v. Ham, 998 F.2d 1247, 1252 (4th Cir.1993). “[T]rial judges are much closer to the pulse of a trial than [appellate judges] can ever be” United States v. Tindle, 808 F.2d 319, 327 n. 6 (4th Cir.1986) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). Trial judges are charged with and are uniquely capable of preserving the integrity of a trial. See Geders, 425 U.S. at 86-87, 96 S.Ct. 1330. Our respect for their judgment is thus all the more important when the truthfulness of witness testimony is at stake, for a trial is by its very nature “a search for truth,” Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 166, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986). Trial courts are also in the best position to interpret their own orders and are entitled to inherent deference when they construe those orders. See Vaughns v. Board of Educ., 758 F.2d 983, 989 (4th Cir.1985); Anderson v. Stephens, 875 F.2d 76, 80 n. 8 (4th Cir.1989). By usurping the role of the district court, this court impairs the ability of trial judges to ensure the integrity of trial proceedings.
My good colleagues are treading some treacherous paths. Judge King’s opinion would subject the sequestration orders of a trial court to the strictest canons of statutory construction. See ante at 316 (“[the] Rule’s plain language relates only to ‘witnesses’ ”); id. at 316 (“nothing on the face of this extending language addresses the conduct of lawyers in any way”); id. at 316 (“It is clear from the plain and unambiguous language of Rule 615....”). Nothing in the above discussion of Rule 615 renders this order any less the order of a trial court.* In undercutting the trial court’s *331construction of its own order, the plurality would allow attorneys to construe trial court orders in the most permissive light possible, even where such construction plainly and utterly frustrates the purpose of the order. Attorneys could then immunize themselves by employing clever wordplay to justify post hoc their behavior to appellate courts. I would not deprive trial courts of the necessary latitude to ensure that the truth does not routinely become the victim of sandbagging and cramped word games. Nor would I supplant our customary rule of deference to a trial court’s reasonable interpretation of its own order with a rule of deference to an attorney’s literalistic construction of the same.
My brother Luttig contends that to defer to the district court’s interpretation of its own order is to forsake the textualism that properly guides us in the task of statutory construction. This contention is misplaced. The differences between our duty in interpreting a statute and our task in reviewing a district court’s interpretation 'of its own order are significant. It is not possible for us to obtain the views of 100 senators and 435 House members in discerning the meaning of a federal statute. By contrast, it is entirely possible for an attorney to obtain an explanation of an order from a single trial judge, an explanation that is there for the asking. In the pursuit of pure textualism, my brother Luttig supplants the cooperation that should obtain between the bench and bar with a more antagonistic relationship based on exploiting trial court orders for every loophole and imprecision. Just as departing from text undermines the rule of law in the course of statutory interpretation, so too will stripping a district court of the ability to enforce its orders undermine the rule of law at trial.
My brother Wilkins would thrust appellate courts into much too close a supervisory role over the remedial judgments of a district court when a sequestration order has been violated. Judge Wilkins would effectively substitute a carefully calibrated test of proportionality for the abuse of discretion standard in assessing whether the district court employed a permissible remedy. While an appellate judge may wish in hindsight that the district court had conducted a more extensive voir dire or taken a different remedial tack, appellate courts should be reluctant to delve deeply into the business of conducting trials. For example, the choice between excluding a compromised witness’ testimony and allowing the witness to be cross-examined is a classic one for the trial court in determining how best to facilitate the truth-finding function.
In overturning the district court, we not only upset the balance between trial and appellate courts, we strike at the soul of the judicial process. Alexander Hamilton pointed out long ago that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse.” The Federalist No. 78, at 465 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). Possessing “neither force nor will,” we have “merely judgment.” Id. And faith in our judgment will rise and fall on the degree to which our processes represent a search for truth. If attorneys can inform subsequent wit*332nesses of prior testimony, trials themselves will become more choreographed performances than spontaneous events. When an en banc appellate court brings a trial court up short on a routine evidentia-ry matter where the trial court’s actions were consistent with the Federal Rules, circuit precedent, and its own order, we create a state of affairs we shall come to lament.
By according Scofield every benefit of the doubt while at the same time viewing the district court’s actions in the most unfavorable light possible, the majority subtly shifts control of trial proceedings from the trial court to the hands of advocates. This is a shame. The job of managing complex criminal litigation is difficult enough even with the supportive standards of appellate review. When circuit courts disregard the deference mandated by those standards, the trial judge’s task becomes one of responsibility without authority. I would not impose on district courts this inordinate burden.
I am authorized to say that Judge Niem-eyer joins me in this dissent.

 My brother King seeks to buttress his second-guessing of the trial court by converting the district court’s interpretation of its sequestration order into a matter of law to be reviewed *331de novo. See ante at 316-17. For the reasons that Judge Niemeyer and I have explained, the district court's finding that Scofield violated the order easily passes muster under this more searching standard of review. Nonetheless, it is difficult to discern how a sequestration order entered pursuant to Rule 615, which primarily authorizes a court to enter such an order, somehow ceases to be the court's own order simply because the court invokes Rule 615. The plurality's argument to this effect contravenes our obligation to accord a district court's interpretation of its own order the deference it is due. See Anderson, 875 F.2d at 80 n. 8; see also United States v. Shurn, 849 F.2d 1090, 1094 (8th Cir.1988) ("The trial court is given broad discretion in the interpretation of Rule 615.”); McKee v. McDonnell Douglas Technical Servs. Co., 700 F.2d 260, 262 (5th Cir.1983) ("Allowing the sequestration of witnesses is imparted to the discretion of the trial judge. It is equally within his discretion to determine whether the separation mandate has been violated and, if so, what sanctions, if any, should be imposed.”).