Bedney v. United States

BEDNEY, Vetera Vetera a/k/a

Graves, Appellant, STATES, Appellee.

UNITED

No. 93-CF-832. Appeals.

District of Columbia Court

Argued June

Decided Oct. 24, 1996.

As Amended Oct.

аlone, and that he had never met or worked appellant. About five months after trial alone plea, went to jury. before a government’s established The evidence 19, 1992, evening Met- that on the of March ropolitan Police Officer Lauren Callen was Kohlman, DC, Gary Washington, for W. working in the 1400 block of undercover Rochon, appellant. Washington, Mark J. Street, walking along Eleventh N.W. While DC, appearance appellant. entered an for Street, Callen encountered Eleventh Officer Gordon, Noel H. Assistant United States Reginald and said that she wanted to Mоrris Attorney, Holder, Jr., with whom Eric H. purchase pill. a Dilaudid Morris told her to Fisher, Attorney, United States and John R. on,” “come and the two of them started Black, Smith, Thomas C. and David L. Assis- walking together down the street. Morris Attorneys, tant United States were on the to wait near a then directed Officer Callen brief, appellee. for van, stood to the white van. While she next Morris walked a short distance to the base- WAGNER, TERRY, Judge, Before Chief doorway nearby Returning of a house. MACK, Judge, Judge. Associate Senior moments, after a few he sold Officer Callen pill, paid him one Dilaudid for which she $40 TERRY, Judge. Associate currency whose serial numbers had been Appellant distributing was convicted of Di- pre-recorded. Callen then walked down laudid, substance, a controlled in violation of Street, Eleventh and Morris returned to the 33-541(a)(l) (1993). § appeal D.C.Code On basement door of the house where he had (1) she contends that the trial court erred in gone before. The address of this house was refusing to admit into evidence the Street, later to determined be Eleventh testimony co-defendant, of her who N.W. (2) previously pleaded guilty; refusing hearsay admit this same under the Neill, point Sergеant At this Gerald anoth- exception against penal for in- declarations team, er member of the undercover started (3) terest; denying requests two defense for him walk behind Mr. Morris and followed a continuance in order to locate the absent doorway. to the basement Neill watched (4) co-defendant; permitting door, down, up Morris went bent impeach appellant post-arrest with her money through stuffed a hole where the (5) silence; allowing a officer ordinarily Look- doorknob would have been. lay called as a expert witness to as an hole, ing past through Additionally, appellant argues witness. person wearing Neill a casual clothes saw support the evidence was insufficient to consisting top bot- of “a black and white her conviction. affirm. down, person move[d] tom.” That “sort of up and then a hand come to take [Neill] saw

I pushed through money” that Morris had immediately, the hole. Almost Appellant was an aider and abettor in the and, straightened up seeing Sergeant Neill principal distribution of Dilaudid. The him, directly yelled “Police.” In re- behind co-defendant, Morris, Reginald who Morris, through sponse, Neill ran pleaded guilty a few months after the indict- doorway,1 and into the basement entering plea, ment was filed. When house. There a “vestibule area” he found repeatedly Mr. Morris on the stated that selling drugs appellant, date of his arrest he had been dressed casual clothes with doorknob, opened, top hinge "literally open, broke off. Because there was no Neill and as it right through doorway." ran The door flew officer, top slacks.2 II black and white Another direction, at Neill’s arrested Appellant’s is that main contention the tri- pre-recorded money, which recovered refusing al court abused its discretion lying Appellant on the floor. had an admit into recorded testi- evidence pockets. in her additional No one else $190 Morris, mony given during Reginald except officers. the vestibule argues guilty plea. course of She an Detective Charles Culver was called as pri- this admissible under the subject drug traf- expert witness on the testimony exception to the or recorded hear- ficking. generally He testified about the use rule, say ruling trial court’s and that in drug of “runners” and “holders” transac- right pre- violated her Amendmеnt Sixth him a ser- tion. When asked sent in her defense. We hold that evidence “a ies of about runner and someone proper exclusion of house,” the thrust of his inside did not because the have an person in the was that the house was the adequate opportunity to cross-examine Mor- holder, person on that the the street was the proceeding in which ris the runner, working that the two them were testimony was recorded. together, and that the “a house was stash money kept. and location” where were background A. Factual only Appellant the defense witnеss. guilty charge pleaded When to the Morris in way that she was She testified involved distribution, drug placed the court him drug in the transaction between Morris and oath, questioned him about the facts of the undercover officer. She said that on the case, sought the to determine whether and evening of March she was the qualified excep- he “addict for the so-called Street, apartment at 1412 basement Eleventh mandatory tion” to minimum the sentence.4 N.W., caring elderly for the resident of that completed question- After the had its court Langford. apartment, Velma she was While (the ing, prosecutor one who same later there, appellant heard a knock on the front case) Morris tried asked several door, but she could not the knock answer follow-up questions eligibility about his immediately because she in the bath- exception. the addict later, Approximately five room. minutes living approached she the door from the 19,1992, March Morris testified that on he room, Sergeant Reginald Neill she saw alone, selling drugs that the basement Shortly through doorway.3 come Morris hiding his stash stairwell where he been thereafter, appellаnt was and taken arrested guarded by being any- narcotics was station, and police was seized $190 one, not know that he did person. from her door on the other side of the basement when money through pushed he the doorknob rebuttal, government presented explained hole. He that after he had sold Brown, manager of Rhonda Callen, he the Dilaudid to Officer “had a Street, Apartments at James 1425 N officer, feeling” police that she was a Brown testified for an N.W. Ms. that a lease “speeding up then he car building saw apartment in that different build- —a happened, street.” he knew the from When ing, about four blocks the one where him, coming get so he by stuffed signed arrested —was Vel- were appellant was 3,1992. money February through the hole the door that Langford on ma through Sergeant suddenly complained When he came the door with Appellant Neill that the Neill, door had hit her in the head. first time that was the she had day. seen Morris that photograph in this man- 2. A dressed ner, arrest, night of her was intro- taken on the 33-541(c)(2) (1993). § 4.See D.C.Code Both the objection. duced into evidence without mandatoiy exception the addict minimum and Appellant rеcognized testified that she Morris 3. repealed were seeing neighborhood. him around the from proceedings are in the two “I didn’t want the that the issues he had noticed earlier. me, similar; party that the money figured substantially on and I money able to confiscate the against wouldn’t be is now offered whom through the hole.” the de- opportunity to cross-examine had an Skyers v. proceeding. clarant at earlier by Focusing a later statement (D.C. 931, 933-934 that he had worked with others 1993) States, 530 (citing Thomas v. United selling drugs, prosecutor asked (D.C.1987), on other “typically” modified who those оthers were. (D.C.1989)(en banc)); grounds, 557 A.2d objected, stating question counsel accord, Alston v. United “going into other crimes” about which (D.C.1978). pre Even if these 314-315 Morris “would have a Fifth Amendment himself_” however, met, the trial court requisites are Agree- right not to incriminate to exclude the testi retains discretion prosecutor ing, the court instructed the by outweighed mony probative if its value is limit his about Morris’ distri- Then, prejudicial Feaster v. United its effect. bution activities to March In this ques- asked a few more after date, are not in dis tions about the events of that the court case the first two elements рute. was an addict and set a court found Morris unavail found The trial sentencing. date for and Morris’ able to testimony given after he was prior (be- day appellant’s the second of trial On placed oath. The critical issue is under judge), counsel fore different defense requirements and fourth whether the third exculpatory portions moved to introduce the fulfilled. have been testimony guilty of Morris’ at the time of his plea.5 hearing argument After from both prong prior To establish the third sides, prior testimony the court ruled the testimony exception, proponent the recorded ground govern- on the that inadmissible the prior in must that the issues both the show opportunity ment had not had a substantial substantially present proceedings are during to cross-examine Morris the earlier trial, appellant’s of similar. The issue at proceeding. Specifically, the court found course, guilt on the was her or innocence prosecutor’s purpose that the in cross-exam- abetting charge aiding of the distribution ining during guilty plea his was dif- of narcotics. But that was not at all relevant purpose what ferent from would have proceeding. that occasion to the earlier On addition, been at trial. In the court said that the issues before the court were wheth- if Morris had been available to at knowing intelligent, plea er Morris’ trial, appellant’s would have voluntary, it whether it had a whether was leeway during had the that he did not have 11(c), basis, Super. R. factual see Ct.Crim. plea proceeding explore to cross-ex- (d), (f), qualified for the and whether any prior relationship amination between testimony, exception. addict Thus Morris’ appellant. Morris and part, only with his own for the most dealt culpability for the сrime with which he was admissibility B. The Morris’ an addict charged and with whether he was prior testimony drugs support sold to his habit. who seeking admit earlier tes When to say part” “for the most because Mor- timony prior ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍testimony under the recorded dealt to some extent with rule, ris’ also hearsay proponent exception to the (1) appellant’s in the events of March role demonstrate that direct must (2) Therefore, unavailable; argue one could that declarant that from the declarant, appellant’s at trial was sub- giving prior ultimate issue testimo explored plеa at the ny, legal proceeding; the issues was under oath in a sumed within trial, eligible that Morris was the court found 5. After the court found Morris for sen- tencing exception, and that there was no reasonable the addict he abscond- unavailable custody in the foresee- chance he would return to ed from the rehabilitation center where he sentencing. During able future. had been sent to await his require- this have held pushed 933-934. We testified that he proceeding. Morris by showing a ordinarily door in an satisfied money through the hole ment “is evidence, not get of material attеmpt to rid issues.” Id. at 934 similarity parties money appel- give the intent to with (citing Epstein v. United know that said he did not words, lant. He also (D.C.1976)).6 In other once of the door on the other side similarity parties that a it is determined money. trying dispose of the when he exists, requirement of the final and issues although he Finally, Morris testified usually if the hearsay exception is met conjunction distributed adequate opportunity party had an opposing others, particular day he was on this on those is- declarant to cross-examine the working alone. ade- opportunity was sues. Whether record, question wheth it is a close however, On this on a must be determined quate, was suffi appellant’s guilt or innocence er reviewing record of by ease-by-case basis hearing during plea Morris’ ciently at issue Feaster, supra, prior proceeding. See satisfy requirement for the the third to the record Thus we look 631 A.2d at 406. testimony exception. Feaster plea ascertain whether guilty Cf. of Morris’ (during supra, A.2d at 406 opportunity its government had an government’s ques jury proceedings, grand ap- explore the issue of cross-examination were “di witness tions to later-unavailable aiding and pellant’s guilt or innocence issue of at the ultimate rected drugs.7 abetting Morris’ distribution States, supra, 619 guilt”); Skyers v. United its contention that support (although purpose of defen at 934-935 appel- was inadmissible to deter hearing prior to trial was dant’s bail presents two ar- government posed danger to the com lant’s whether he mine First, it hearing guments. it maintains munity, cross-examining a later-un permitted purpose to cross-examine have the same length at about defendant’s it proceeding available witness that during the earlier Morris was in crime for which he involvemеnt the trial. At during appellant’s have had would tried); supra, later Alston United hearing, government’s cross- prior guilty (during co-defendant’s 383 A.2d at 315 mainly toward was directed examination extensively into inquired plea, government sentencing under the eligibility for Morris’ in crime for which he role defendant’s But if he had been avail- exception. addict tried, the circumstances later as well as govern- appellant’s able to met and co-defendant under which defendant asserts, would its cross-examination arrest). conclude, day on the of their We purpose of at- the different then havе had however, point this that need not decide we problem credibility. The tacking Morris’ prong prior record the fourth because government argument is that the this with testimony exception not established. ed some in fact cross-examine did had aided and detail about whether prong requires a show The fourth drugs on March abetted his distribution prior against ing party whom that States, su- Feaster United 1992. case, testimony is offered —in now Cf. Specifically, pra, 631 A.2d at adequate opportunity to an government —had that he had cross-examination testified on during the earli the deсlarant cross-examine hole money through the doorknob pushed the supra, A.2d at Skyers, proceeding. er (as testimony see in a fails we shall parties Mr. Morris’ moment) similarity is not In this case dealing existing case law disputed. under our hearsay exception, thus it can fare with this suggests “similar is- government that our 7. The also Feaster federal rule. See better under the admitting prior recorded requirement for sues” testimony (opinion supra, A.2d at 414 v. United equivalent the "similar motive” adoption King), noting of Federal Judge 804(b)(1). Conse- requirement of Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) require this court en banc would Rule adopt explic- urges quently, government us to States, 434 A.2d 463 to overrule Johns v. We decline itly the federal rule. the substance of so, argument regarding appellant's to do since appellant— any past about association with into the basement where her, their long had known how close standing attempt dispose in an of material how he was, they relationship had ever had evidence, money whether give an not with intent long dealings, on. any and so So business appellant. He also said he did not know that prior drug questioning did not touch on such appellant was on the othеr side of the door conduct, illegal Morris would sales or other money through the hole. when he shoved the privilege to have had no Fifth Amendment Finally, although he had Morris stated appellant’s defense was invoke. Since conjunction distributed day on the nothing she had to do with Morris others, selling with on March 19 he was him arrest and knew as some- their Thus, government’s if drugs alone. even the neighborhood, around the one she had seen purpose cross-examining Morris was dif- testimony any prior be- about association ferent, testimony on his actual cross-exami- highly proba- would havе been tween the two purpose largely nation makes that irrelevant. tive, and the would have been government’s argument, It is the second subject thoroughly on explore entitled to however, uphold that convinces us to the trial thereby try to under- cross-examination and govern- ruling. court’s We assume that the gov- Because the mine defense. prior involve- ment’s about Morris’ ernment not allowed to do so at the ap- ment in distribution activities with prior hearing, earlier we hold that Morris’ pellant would on dates other than March 19 was inadmissible. Fifth con- have raised the same Amendment Appellant argues in the alternative cerns at trial as prior (along with prior hearing. ruling But court’s couple of statements to the same ef other questioning which barred this line its fect) have been admitted as a declara should entirety denying had the additional effect of against penal interest. Laumer tion government any opportunity to cross- (D.C.1979) (en v. United 409 A.2d 190 examine Morris about his non-incrimi- banc) (adopting forth in Fed. R. test set natory relationship appellant. 804(b)(3)). disagree. The record We Evid. prior hearing, At the asked any “corroborating circum dоes not reflect Morris, “Well, you selling weren’t clearly stances that indicate ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍the trustworthi [drugs] by yourself, you would sell with note, Id. at 200. ness of the statement.” somebody an to this else?” Because answer particular, that Morris’ question might well have incriminated Mor- ar given almost nine months after his ris, his invocation of his Fifth Amendment rest, significantly longer than lapse a of time court, however, privilege proper. The See, e.g., Irby generally acceptable. v. privilege sustained his claim of but (D.C.1991) States, 759, 765 United 585 A.2d also refused to allow the to ask (three inadmissible); months; statement any Morris about his activities on date other States, 1231, 1235 Brawn v. United than March 1992. This further restric- (D.C.1988) (same). significantly, More Mor tion, conclude, impossible for we made it not involved ris’ statement that prosecutor to cross-examine Morris about his against drug on 19 was not in the sale March non-incriminatory dealings appel- expose penal his because it did not interest lant, disqualified thus it testimo- Morris’ any greater liability than that him to criminal ny appellant’s at from admission trial under already by exposed to himself which he testimony exception to the pleading guilty. Henson v. United See hearsay rule. cert, denied, States, (D.C.), 20 62 444 100 S.Ct. 62 L.Ed.2d U.S. In our cases in which the admission of (1979). find no for admit therefore basis allowed, prior recorded has been testimony. ting generally the cross-examination has been Feaster, broad and unrestricted. 681 Ill Alston, 406; 935; Skyers, A.2d at A.2d at 619 other contentions Appellant 383 A.2d at 315. Had Morris been available makes several briefly. trial, may more asked which we treat he could have been no there was for a continuance because tions requests, a continuance A. The for could be possibility that Morris reasonable trial that Appellant contends testify. to See Kimes v. Unit found time for erroneously her two motions court denied (affirm 114-115 supra, 569 A.2d at ed that she could a continuance of the trial so repeated but ing of continuance after denial co-defendant, Re try to locate her erstwhile missing wit efforts to locate unsuccessful that the court ginald maintains Morris. She ness). that Morris had granting these record reveals discretion in not The abused its key testify, witness Morris was a subpoenaed motions because previously been defense, and because there were for the the court appear, that when he fаiled countervailing supporting factors the denial De for his arrest. a bench warrant issued of her motions. private a inves retaining the services of spite still unable again tigator, defense counsel was day the first

On requested a day, agree counsel with the the third defense this record we find him. On Reginald to locate Mor- continuance order like that there was no reasonable trial court ris, from a rehabili- who had absconded become available lihood that Morris would both mo- The court denied tation center. granted. We if a continuance werе even tions, ruling was no realistic that there find no abuse of discretion therefore found before the chance that Morris could be motions. two denial continuance, howev- In lieu of a trial ended. er, occasion that a the court said on each Appellant’s alleged post-arrest silence B. for Morris’ warrant had been issued bench found, arrest, that the trial court Appellant if to be contends and that he were allowing prosecutor, do what it could ensure court would erred (cid:127) presence at trial. cross-examination, impeach her with find no error. post-arrest silence. We seeking a continuance of party A missing witness “must make trial to locate a trial, during prosecutor’s cross-ex- At showing such continuance is ‘reason following oc- appellant, amination ably necessary just determination of curred: ” cause.’ O’Connor (D.C.1979) Ma’am, (citing Q. at the scene when Brown Unit (D.C.1968)). you tell your apartment, didn’t ed came into movant must requirement, recognize Mr. you did not fulfilling must showing. He or she make a fivefold Morris, you? did (2) (1) is, missing witness establish who Mr. nobody ask me about A Didn’t (3) be, would what the witness’ Morris. testimony, of that competencе relevance (4) ob probably could be the witness that, Ma’am, you them Q. didn’t tell granted, and if the continuance were tained you? seeking the continuance party They didn’t ask me. A trying to locate diligence in has exercised due States, 569 witness. Rimes v. United that these Appellant now contends (D.C.1989) O’Connor, 104, (citing A.2d 114 right to remain her constitutional violated 28). A for contin A2d at motion supra, 399 silent. discretion of to the sound uance is addressed way court, its decision either the trial af silence The use of defendant’s showing of except on a not be reversed will warnings8 impeach receiving Miranda ter States, 502 v. United “clear abuse.” Adams of due testimony at trial is a violation her (D.C.1986). 1011, 1025 610, 619, Ohio, 96 Doyle v. 426 U.S. process. (1976). 2245, 2240, How 49 L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. not that the court did abuse conclude in- ever, not been the accused has when denying appellant’s ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍two mo- its discretion 1602, (1966). 436, Arizona, 694 16 L.Ed.2d 86 S.Ct. 384 U.S. 8. Miranda v.

767 Q. Sergeant, individual who right because had the formed of her to remain silent arrest, Callen yet placed was involved the sale Officer she has not been under you as a runner? there is no constitutional bar to the use been described pre-arrest purpose of her silence for the Yes, A. sir. Abrahamsоn, impeachment. Brecht v. 507 Appellant contends that these refer- now 619, 627-628, 1710, 1716, 113 S.Ct. 123 U.S. a “runner” cloaked Neill ences to Morris as Anderson, (1993); v. L.Ed.2d 353 Jenkins credibility enhanced accorded with the 2124, 2129-2130, 100 S.Ct. U.S. witnesses, improper and that this was expert (1980). 65 L.Ed.2d 86 a fact testifying as because Neill was satisfied, however, are witness. We case, hold, In this we the court did Sergeant of a non- Neill’s allowing prosecutor not err in to cross- entirely on his expert nature and was based appellant examine about silence. The own observations. appellant record makes clear that what now may non-expert A witness ex regards post-arrest as her silence was actual opinions testifying, long so press when ly pre-arrest. Sergeant Neill’s personal ob are based on the witness’ placed shows that was not helpful to the servation of events and are arrest when he and Morris entered the base jury fulfilling its role as fact-finder. Car apartment. prosecutor’s Since the (D.C. ter United question concerned the moment “when the 1992); Rich, 464, 470 Fateh v. police apartment,” came into there was [the] lay opinion Whether a witness’ violation, Doyle рoint at that helpful jury to the is a decision left to the yet had not been arrested. It not until Carter, trial court. sound discretion of the Sergeant after Morris had been arrested that 919; 614 A.2d at see also Hill United appel Neill directed another officer to take (when (D.C.1988) custody. Moreover, appellant’s lant also into opinion testimony is officer’s based response any silence was custodial personal knowledge, officer is not deemed an interrogation. The evidence shows that the “expert”). house, police, when the Eleventh Street did not аsk her about her connection with case, Sergeant present In the Neill’s Morris, similarly and that she did not volun statements about Morris’ role as runner any governmen teer information. Thus “no opinion at were not made in the form of an [appellant] tal action induced to remain silent all. The record makes clear that Morris was arrest,” Anderson, supra, before Jenkins v. as a described to Neill over the radio 447 U.S. at S.Ct. and there purposes In “runner” for of identification. prosecu was no constitutional violation in the context, run Neill’s reference to Morris as a question. tor’s simply part ner was of his narrative of his events that led to Morris’

own role event, any if Neill’s use of arrest. even alleged “expert” testimony C. The opinion, to an the word “runner” amounted Sergeant Neill la expert of Detective Culver At asked the cumulative and thus ter in the trial made it following questions during his direct exami non-prejudicial. Hill v. nation of Neill: supra, 541 A.2d at 1288. you Q. Okay. you do What Sufficiency D. the evidence got apartment? Finally, appellant that the contends walking up A. I saw the runner to- erroneously her motion for trial court denied yard wards the —in the towards thе base- judgment acquittal there was no of because location, got I out ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍car and of the connecting her to the actual sale evidence followed him. argues that since the Dilaudid. She drug tying her to Morris’ distribu- evidence 768 of the is an aider and abettor actual seller presence the base-

tion activities was sale). money through the ment when he shoved the door, not have the case should

hole jury. disagree. gone to the IV someone as an aider To convict abettor, prove that reasons, must con- foregoing For the with a crimi the defеndant associated herself viction Affirmed. venture, participated in that venture nal about, bring something she wished to MACK, Judge, dissenting: Senior venture sought by her actions to make the States, E.g., v. 522 succeed. Settles United my colleagues when part company I (D.C.1987). government’s 357 The prior recorded testimo- that the reason The passed evidence this test. oath, Morris, given ny Reginald (who two other officers Officer Callen and government, at the inadmissible because ear) parked estab watching from a were recording, prevented from of the time pill purchased one Dilaudid lished that Callen cross-examining the witness about activities testi Reginald Morris. Neill from of March 1992. than on the date other proceeds push the fied that he saw Morris precisely trial was The issue through hole in a that sale the doorknob drug distri- guilt that of her or innocence other door toward someone on the basement 19,1992, counsel for and as bution on March door, up “hand [came] side of the whose value of the appellant argues, probative “the money.” dispute take the There can be [exonerating could her] statement [recorded] рerson on the other was the v. greater.” Alston Unit- not have been See door, though denied side of the even she (D.C.1978). Preju- States, 383 A.2d 307 ed money. also said that retrieving the Neill minimal, any, if government, dice to the in a house known as a appellant was arrested speculative.1 as well as drugs regularly sold. place illegal where were Finally, expert of Detective view, req- appellant met all the my Culver, ques response hypothetical to a the record- necessary for invocation of uisites tion, jury that she and allowed the to infer hearsay rule. exception to the ed jointly sale Morris were involved States, 631 A.2d Feaster v. United a defined role. and that each of them had (D.C.1993). light most favor as it must be Viewed for a new I and remand would reverse government,9 evidence was able trial. support appellant’s conviction. sufficient States, 732, 733 608 A.2d Stevenson United government need not es “The drugs [distributed]

tablish prove that she aided ... in order to

herself doing so.” someone else

and abetted States, 1086, 1088 600 A.2d v. United

Greer

(D.C.1991) (citation omitted); Griggs see also (D.C.

1992) seller, buyer to (person who introduces place, and nearby takes

stands while sale [buyer] for his assis payment from

“solieit[s] sale);

tance” is an aider abettor 566-

Mason v. United (D.C.1969) provides (person who non-incriminatory associ- Any evidence of E.g., v. United Nelson the ‍‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌​‍defendant witness and ation between the (D.C.1991) cases). (citing de- might undermined the might not have or fense.

Case Details

Case Name: Bedney v. United States

Court Name: District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Date Published: Oct 24, 1996

Citation: 684 A.2d 759

Docket Number: 93-CF-832

Court Abbreviation: D.C.