Court Opinion

ID: 9836957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:42.149128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.544544
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Judge
(concurring in the result):
I agree with the majority. If there was error, it was not plain error. I write separately to explain why there was no error. First, the statement in question in this ease was not in the Government’s initial argument but in its rebuttal argument. Second, this rebuttal was prompted by the defense argument on the credibility of other witnesses and the beginning of direct examination of appellant.
This is not a ease where the prosecution in the first instance comments on an accused’s right to remain silent and his presence in the courtroom. The comment by the prosecutor here was in response to the direct examination of appellant, as well as to defense counsel’s closing argument.
The assistant trial counsel opened his rebuttal argument as follows:
Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. President, members, there is only one witness who has testified in this court-martial who had the luxury and the benefit of seeing all the Government’s witnesses and seeing all the Government’s evidence before taking the stand and testifying, and that’s the accused. And remember, as a bonus, he had a three-day weekend to prepare for his testimony.
[Trial counsel] cross-examined the accused yesterday, as to his story of what happened. Now, in real life in the courtroom, people don’t wither under cross-examination. It’s not like the way it happens on TV, where people just fall apart and say, yes, I did it. So, it doesn’t happen that way in real life. In this case, we can’t expect it to happen because this accused is *398a skilled, experienced, trained liar. He knows how to look you right in the eye and tell you a lie.
(Emphasis added.) None of appellant’s trial defense lawyers objected to the above argument or requested that the military judge take any remedial action with respect to it. Also, the military judge did not initiate any ameliorative action.
Court members are not oblivious to what happens at a trial. Most see movies, watch television, and are familiar with the stages of a trial. Here, the prosecution was merely commenting on the obvious after being invited to make such a response.
Trial defense counsel invited this comment when beginning the direct examination of appellant, as follows:
Q. Petty Officer Carpenter, how long have you served in the Navy?
A. Seven years, sir.
Q. Are you testifying under a grant of immunity?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you understand and have I explained to you that you have a right under the United States Constitution Fifth Amendment to remain silent?
A. Yes, sir.
TC: Objection. Bolstering.
Q. Petty Officer Carpenter, do you know that you have taken an oath to tell the truth today?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And are you aware of the penalties for not telling the truth?
A. Yes, sir.
This case is like United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 108 S.Ct. 864, 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988). In Robinson, the Court held that the prosecutor’s reference to the defendant’s failure to testify, despite the opportunity to do so, was a fair response to the defense counsel’s argument and, thus, not error. Id. at 32, 108 S.Ct. 864.
While the defendant has the right to have the jury instructed not to draw any inference from his failure to testify, Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288, 101 S.Ct. 1112, 67 L.Ed.2d 241 (1981), the courts should recognize that, in some instances, this may very well be futile. But this is not a ease of the defendant not testifying. Here, the defendant testified and had a choice as to when to testify; to ask the members to bury their heads in the sand, though perhaps laudable, may very well be the wrong approach. Agard v. Portuondo, 159 F.3d 98 (2d Cir.1998), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 119 S.Ct. 1248, 143 L.Ed.2d 346 (1999).