Robinson v. United States
2012 WL 3731773
D.C.2012Background
- Three appellants were convicted of AWIK-WA, AAWA, ADW, and gun charges; Kellibrew and Robinson were also convicted of kidnapping while armed, with Kellibrew also convicted of first-degree sexual abuse and Robinson of simple assault; Edwards was acquitted on kidnapping and related firearm charges but convicted of AWIK-WA, AAWA, ADW, and PFCV; the convictions were largely based on the complainant Donna Terry’s testimony and the government’s theory of a prolonged assault in the 20th and Rosedale area; the defense challenged the exclusion of expert testimony on PCP effects and claimed Brady violations; the trial court ruled no Brady violation and excluded the PCP testimony on timeliness grounds, leading to post-trial Brady/new-trial motions; the panel ultimately affirmed the convictions but remanded to vacate duplicative ADW and PFCV convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady nondisclosure of PCP use | Robinson: govt suppressed PCP evidence | Robinson/Kellibrew: Brady violation | No suppression; not material; harmless aside from evidentiary error |
| Admission of PCP effects expert testimony | Appellants: relevant to credibility | Government: untimely/irrelevant | Trial court erred in excluding testimony on notice and relevance; error deemed harmless |
| Prosecutor's rebuttal comment on PCP evidence | Defendants: improper shift of burden; unfair | Government: permissible comment | Comment unfair but not reversible error given overall evidence and harmlessness |
| Merger of counts (ADW, AAWA, PFCV, kidnapping, etc.) | Robinson/Edwards: merge multiple counts | Same acts/overlap justify separate convictions | ADW merges into AAWA; two PFCV counts vacated as duplicative; other mergers not warranted |
| Effectiveness of PCP-based defense given trial record | Defense: PCP could distort perception; experts would help | Defense: PCP effects relevant to credibility and perception | Expert testimony should have been admitted; however, its absence was harmless given corroboration and other defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose favorable impeachment evidence under Brady)
- Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (U.S. 1985) (materiality standard for suppressed evidence (probability of different outcome))
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (materiality and prejudice considerations in Brady contexts)
- Coates v. United States, 558 A.2d 1148 (D.C. 1989) (admissibility of PCP-related testimony; rejection based on overstatements later criticized)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (right to present relevant defense testimony despite state evidentiary rules)
- Williams v. United States, 805 A.2d 919 (D.C. 2002) (limitations on highlighting evidentiary exclusions in closing argument)
- Benn v. United States, 978 A.2d 1257 (D.C. 2009) (expert testimony to aid jury; defense-right to present relevant expert evidence)
- Whitaker v. United States, 616 A.2d 843 (D.C. 1992) (kidnapping vs. assault merger considerations)