79 A.3d 296
D.C.2013Background
- Davis and Hager were convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to commit robbery, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence; Davis also convicted of escape and violating the Bail Reform Act.
- Davis challenges his exclusion from voir dire and raises evidentiary challenges to the convictions related to the armed robbery, assault, and PFCV; Hager challenges only evidentiary aspects.
- The July 1, 2008 robbery involved three suspects who robbed victims at gunpoint, with a green shirt and dreadlocked appearance described by witnesses.
- A fingerprint belonging to Davis was found on Ford’s stolen cell phone recovered in an alley; Ford’s and Harrison’s phones were also involved as evidence linking defendants to the crime.
- Pretrial photo identifications were obtained by the victims; none identified both defendants in court, and trial admitted the photo arrays over objection.
- Voir dire was conducted at the bench with headsets intended to allow Davis to hear and observe; the defense claims Davis was not able to observe jurors, and the court did not definitively resolve this dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right of presence at voir dire violated? | Davis was denied presence at voir dire. | Davis’s counsel preserved the objection; presence is fundamental. | Reversible error; new trial ordered for Davis. |
| Admissibility of pretrial identifications for Davis | Identifications could be unreliable and should be suppressed. | Identifications were admissible as reliable enough; weight for jury. | Admissible; weight goes to credibility. |
| Admissibility of Ford’s phone fingerprint evidence | Chain-of-custody gaps and inconsistencies undermine admissibility. | Evidence sufficient to satisfy admissibility and reliability; weight to jury. | Admissible; concerns go to weight, not admissibility. |
| Hager’s case—evidence and identification challenges | Same evidentiary challenges apply as to Davis. | No reversible error; identifications not impermissibly suggestive; sufficient evidence. | Affirmed for Hager. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kleinbart v. United States, 553 A.2d 1239 (D.C.1989) (right to be present at voir dire and observe jurors' responses)
- Beard v. United States, 535 A.2d 1373 (D.C.1988) (ambiguous request for presence; denial treated by court as denial of presence)
- Boone v. United States, 483 A.2d 1135 (D.C.1984) (presence at voir dire; observation and hearing essential)
- Robinson v. United States, 448 A.2d 853 (D.C.1982) (right to be present at bench voir dire)
- Briggs v. United States, 525 A.2d 583 (D.C.1987) (considerations for alternatives when presence at bench is impractical)
- Lay v. United States, 831 A.2d 1015 (D.C.2003) (waiver of right to be present where defense fails to timely object)
- United States v. Hoover-Hankerson, 511 F.3d 164 (D.C.Cir.2007) (headset effectiveness in voir dire; distinguishable from present case)