200 A.3d 230
D.C.2019Background
- Defendant Jonathan Blades was convicted after a jury trial of assault with intent to kill while armed (firearm), two counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence (PFCV), aggravated assault while armed (firearm), possession of an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition, based on a February 2, 2014 shooting outside Look Lounge.
- Eyewitnesses (Campbell and Paige) testified Blades fought with Campbell, went to his car, retrieved a gun, and fired multiple rounds; nine cartridge casings and bullets were recovered and linked ballistically to a firearm found at Blades's home; medical and ballistics evidence suggested shots struck Campbell from behind/angle and casings formed a linear pattern.
- Blades testified he retrieved a loaded gun for protection, fired in fear during a chaotic brawl, and acted in self-defense; he acknowledged firing nine shots but claimed he did not intend to kill.
- At voir dire the court questioned individual jurors at the bench with a white‑noise “husher” on (public could see but not hear); Blades objected on public‑trial grounds. Trial exhibits included photo arrays (mugshot‑style) used for witness identification and published to the jury.
- On appeal Blades challenged (1) use of the husher/violation of his Sixth Amendment public‑trial right, (2) admission/publishing of mugshot‑style photo arrays, (3) certain prosecutor rebuttal remarks implying bringing a gun forfeits self‑defense, and (4) a provocation instruction. The court affirmed convictions but ordered merger of PFCV counts.
Issues
| Issue | Blades' Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of husher at bench voir dire — public‑trial violation | Husher prevented public from hearing individual voir dire; Waller requir es case‑specific findings; absence of findings = structural error requiring reversal | Longstanding practice; public could observe visually, transcript available, husher is a reasonable alternative to closure to protect juror candor | Affirmed: husher-run bench questioning is an acceptable alternative to closure here and did not violate public‑trial right |
| Admission/publication of mugshot‑style photo arrays | No demonstrable need (identity not in dispute); photos imply prior arrest; prejudicial publicity — should be excluded | Identification testimony still material to witness credibility; array publication permissible | Any error in admitting/publishing arrays was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Prosecutor remarks in rebuttal implying possession of gun forfeits self‑defense | Remarks misstated law and suggested mere possession of gun bars self‑defense; prejudicial improper argument | Viewed in context prosecutor emphasized no right to use excessive force; jury instructions and prior statements made self‑defense available despite possession | Not reversible error: remarks, viewed in context and given jury instruction, did not cause substantial prejudice |
| Provocation instruction | Instruction improperly told jurors one who places himself where he might provoke trouble cannot claim self‑defense; no adequate evidentiary basis | Evidence of grabbing/shoulder‑turning and subsequent conduct warranted instruction; withdrawal instruction also given | If error, it was harmless: instruction unlikely to have caused verdict and jury convicted of a greater offense inconsistent with being misled by provocation instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (Waller four‑part test for closing proceedings to public) (establishes requirements for closure of public trials)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (public‑trial right extends to voir dire)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (voir dire openness is "well settled"; transcript not necessarily adequate substitute)
- Copeland v. United States, 111 A.3d 627 (D.C. 2015) (describing practice of bench voir dire with husher as not structural error in that case)
- Bishop v. United States, 983 A.2d 1029 (D.C. 2009) (three‑part test for admissibility of mugshot‑type photos)
- Kleinbart v. United States, 388 A.2d 878 (D.C. 1978) (public‑trial violation requires reversal; prejudice presumed where public excluded)