36 A.3d 352
D.C.2012Background
- Coles challenges convictions for aggravated assault, resisting a police officer, and firearm-related offenses after trial where cross-examination about officer conduct was limited; the key issue concerns Sixth Amendment confrontation rights.
- Officer Hopper testified as the prosecution’s key witness; defense sought cross-examination about internal reports and potential police misconduct.
- Trial court allowed limited cross-examination on some police regulations but barred questions about delays in filing reports and sequestration, which defense argued showed bias and potential collusion.
- Defense argued Hopper copied portions of his report from Officer Carey, suggesting corruption; court treated copying as potentially permissible under regulations and did not tie it to collusion.
- Court held the cross-examination restriction violated Coles’s Sixth Amendment rights and reversed all but one conviction, remanding for a new trial; convictions based on Hopper’s testimony were reversed.
- Remand for a new trial; one conviction for failing to appear on the original trial date remains intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did precluding cross-examination about Hopper’s report copying violate the Sixth Amendment? | Coles sought to show Hopper’s bias/coductive copying. | Hopper copying could be permissible; broader cross-examination on regulations unnecessary. | Yes; violation requiring new trial. |
| Was the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt? | Excluding this line of cross-examination could have affected juror’s view of credibility. | Other evidence insufficient to negate impact of restricted cross-examination. | No; reversible error; reverse convictions except one. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner v. United States, 698 A.2d 990 (D.C.1997) (confrontation rights and cross-examination standards)
- Gaines v. United States, 994 A.2d 391 (D.C.2010) (meaningful cross-examination essential to assess credibility)
- In re C.B.N., 499 A.2d 1215 (D.C.1985) (bias/motive to lie as proper cross-examination subject)
- Lewis v. United States, 10 A.3d 646 (D.C.2010) (limits on cross-examination; need for discriminating appraisal of bias)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S.1974) (cross-examination on bias to reveal reliability of witness)