*1 remanded to the Board The case is finding The Board’s of recklessness 339. consistent with proceedings further based, large part, on what opinion. pattern Board deemed “an extensive Because we conclude
misappropriation.” Remanded. pattern of misappropriation such existed, pattern or at that no such least evidence, by the it follows that
was shown Bar failed to meet its
the Office of Counsel Although Edwards did proof.
burden of
engage commingling, instances of some slip her although record-keeping COLES, Appellant, Paul
shod, least, say we do not have proof pattern before us sufficient of a requiring misconduct that rises to a level STATES, Appellee. UNITED the sanction of disbarment. deci “[0]ur No. 00-CF-1570. sions, by implication, rejected clear can be proposition recklessness Appeals. District of Columbia Court by inadequate record-keeping alone shown April 2002. Submitted commingling misappro combined with Anderson, priation.” In re A.2d at 340 Decided Oct. (D.C. Reed,
(citing In re
1996), Choroszej, re (D.C.1992)). do mean
We not to minimize the serious- conduct, imply
ness Edwards’ or to
reckless misappropriation and the resul- possible
tant sanction of disbarment is not
as an ultimate result in this case. We hold
only that such a conclusion simply
supported by substantial evidence Evans,
record before us. In re See (D.C.1990). 1141, 1142 We therefore in-
remand this matter to the Board with whether, given our
structions to reconsider
ruling misappropri- that Edwards did Fashaw, Kim, any
ate or White
funds, Bar Counsel has established that her
the manner which Edwards handled displayed
clients’ funds reckless “disre-
gard
safety
and welfare.”
[the funds’]
Anderson,
In re
Board, may also reassess mitigating proffered by circumstances
any whether a
Ms. Edwards and determine appropriate.
sanction of disbarment is still *2 DC, Wagner, Washington, ap-
Brenda C. court, pointed by ap- filed a brief pellant. Howard, Jr.,
Roscoe C. United States Fisher, Attorney, and John R. Elizabeth Trosman, Albert, and Janet E. Assistant Attorneys, filed a brief for United States appellee. RUIZ,
Before and SCHWELB KING, Judges, Associate Senior Judge.
SCHWELB, Judge: Associate trial, After a deadlocked at his first charges Paul was retried on a man who began to chase spotted fire- robbery1 possession of a wallet, loader,” “speed discarded a crime of during arm the commission of doc- cap, personal and some (PFCV)2 stocking black relating to violence appre- he was shortly before uments gunpoint of Redoduane Abderrafe. Paul man turned out to be hended. guilty at his second trial found Coles *3 Coles, case. Officers counts, appeals. on both and he now had handgun which Coles also recovered that the trial primary Coles’ contention is in the chase. dropped earlier allegedly by error re- judge committed reversible cross-examination of stricting 1998, Coles’ 22, jury returned grand July On disagree and af- prosecution witness. We indictment a nine-count firm. three him with involvement charging robberies, was the one of which separate first of Mr. Abderrafe. Coles’ I. Rhonda Reid Judge was held before trial THE EVIDENCE 5 to October from October Winston un- guilty found jury 1999. The Coles trial, prosecution present- At Coles’ in connec- of ammunition possession lawful which, credited, evidence if established ed robbery, but dead- the Abderrafe tion with night July late at two and PFCV locked on the he gunpoint men robbed Abderrafe at as the conviction for charges.3 We affirmed in Georgetown walked down a street short- in Coles v. United possession ammunition ly completed after he his work shift as a 99-CV-1017, Memorandum No. waiter at a local restaurant. After (D.C. March Judgment and Opinion tips robbers took the that Abderrafe had earned, one of the men ordered him to From October to October “[g]o your go turn back. Just —don’t Judge trial before jury second was held
straight.” The men then fled on foot. two respect M. Greene with instructed, Natalia Combs Abderrafe continued to walk as robbery and PFCV. charges of armed immediately he almost encountered Of- the second trial found Coles Joseph Metropolitan ficer Thomas appeal fol- on both counts. This guilty Department. Police Abderrafe told Offi- lowed. robbed, cer Thomas
he described one of the two robbers to the II. tall, officer as “not too not too short” and military wearing pants [a] as “tan IMPEACHMENT THE ATTEMPTED information, white Based on this shirt.” FOR BIAS lookout over Officer Thomas broadcast a only issue raised Coles police radio. consideration plenary which merits appeal limiting in the erred working officers whether the police Several Goodwine, a of Kurt broadcast. the cross-examination Georgetown area monitored the We discern leads, prosecution.4 for the they witness pursuing After several other 22-2901, robbery (1996), acquitted of armed Coles was §§ -3202 recodi- 1. D.C.Code weapons charges in relation related 22-2801, (2001). §§ -4502 fied as D.C.Code charged in the that were other two incidents indictment. 22-3204(b), § recodified 2. D.C.Code (2001). 22-4504(b) § D.C.Code dis- remaining warrant little claims 4. Coles’ argues convictions for that his cussion. He attorney attempted then to cross- legal error or of discretion. Coles’ abuse view, our the limitation of which Coles regarding employ- examine Goodwine very complains pertained to a matter complaint ment discrimination little, value, any, probative and its exclu- January allegedly filed justified by potential sion was dis- Navy Depart- at the superior Goodwine’s tracting from the issue at hand. as to the rele- judge inquired ment. The least, very At the prof- and counsel question, vance of the reasonably so conclude. fine of fered that bi- would demonstrate that Goodwine was Background. A. explained Counsel ased Coles. ease-in-chief, prosecution’s During man- had been called as a that Goodwine *4 Goodwine testified that he had sold defen- Department of the agement witness the handgun, dant Coles a Smith and Wesson on Navy hearing in an administrative loader, well a speed as as ammunition and in complaint. Subsequently, Coles’ Janu- employed by when the two men were the 2000, affi- ary had stated an Goodwine Department Navy approximately of the that “had a deleterious effect davit Coles five the trial. iden- before Goodwine of the section because none of morale 2, by tified Exhibit No. its Government’s we number, his motivation and that he. us could understand weapon serial as the 2 sold to Exhibit No. was the heading.”5 Coles. all where this was see allegedly dropped that handgun Coles had did not judge indicated that she see during pursuit of him. the officers’ On provided complaint how the discrimination cross-examination, acknowl- Goodwine evi- with a motive to fabricate edged that he no documentation of the in an falsely implicating dence Coles handgun sale of the to and he was if robbery. pointed out that armed She precise unable to recall either the date of proposed questioning permitted, the paid the transaction or the exact amount the prosecutor the would have him Coles. provides per- merge, we have of Criminal Procedure armed and PFCV but Rules part: tinent previously rejected See Han this contention. any party may assign portion No as error States, 845, (D.C. A.2d na v. United 666 856 charge the or omission therefrom un- 1995) ("The merge count does not [PFCV] party objects that thereto before less count”); . .. the armed Thomas with verdict, stating jury retires consider 647, (D.C. 1992) v. United distinctly party the matter to which that ("[T]he Columbia] Council the District of [of grounds objection. objects and the of the offense [of PFCV] did not intend ... circumstances, we review Under these merge subject with an offense to the en error, plain Johnson v. United penalty provision hanced [D.C.Code 1544, 461, 466-67, S.Ct. 22-]3202.”). § (1997), L.Ed.2d 718 and find none. that, reinstructing complains Coles also agree dissenting 5. We with our col- cannot jury respect with elements of league quoted language rises to the that the robbery, judge the definition omitted "expression] an animus” [of] level of property away.” of the words "carried the Indeed, view, in our Coles. Post at 491. The element itself was not omitted from phrases "demonstrabl[e] like "animus” and reinstruction, previously judge had and the bias,” reality when id. at overstate meaning as to the instructed dealing here with considers that we are one language question. associating alleged falsely an motive for object infra, pp. attorney robbery. did not to the rein- 490- Coles’ with an armed Superior Rule 30 of the Court's struction. omitted). ques- “A line of bring position. out the witness’ Coles’ at- marks should, if torney that be acknowledged tioning may, so: disallowed “Oh, question.” ex- probative then that its the trial court concludes try plained propose substantially outweighed by that she did value is 281; matter regarded what she collateral id. see of unfair danger prejudice,” (namely, rights wrongs of Good- v. Mercer also with (D.C.1999), wine’s criticism of Coles connection case): the discrimination from may divert attention of The trial has try I’m not that the issue hand. going [discrimination] know, think, I you always case. is “wide latitude insofar as Confrontation relevant, true, impose when is concerned to reasonable Clause examination,” given, the circum- affidavit was limits on cross Delaware Arsdall, given, stances under which was 475 U.S. Van (1986), administrative action where this witness for she has 89 L.Ed.2d just he was called as seeing responsibility “the side- to have been one of does not take over the circus.” show Ed- any that he action discriminators or took W. CleaRY, McCoRmick Evidence waRD your client, (3d I how that ed.1984). don’t see § at 89 *5 probative is of bias terms of—I’m case, In the present proposed
going to turn this into some discrimina-
im
designed
cross-examination
tion trial.
bias:
peach Goodwine for
attorney
argued
Coles’
then
that Good-
“curry
wine’s motive was to
with his
favor
in the “common law
Bias is a term used
judge disagreed
boss.” The
and declined
relationship
of evidence” to describe
permit
cross-examination.
party
and a witness which
between
slant,
lead
uncon-
might
the witness
Legal Analysis.
B.
otherwise,
sciously
testimony
or
A
criminal
defendant’s
against party.
may
of or
be
favor
Bias
is
prosecution
cross-examine
witnesses
like, dislike, or
by
induced
a witness’
protected by the
Confrontation Clause
self-
party,
of a
or
the witness’
fear
Alaska,
the Sixth Amendment. Davis v.
interest.
308, 315,
1105,
415
94
39
S.Ct.
Abel,
52,
45,
v.
469 U.S.
105
States
United
(1974);
L.Ed.2d 347
Lawrence v. United
(1984).
465,
Bias is
83
450
S.Ct.
L.Ed.2d
States,
374,
(D.C.1984). That
482 A.2d
376
relevant,” Hollingsworth v.
“always
Unit-
however,
v.
right,
is not unlimited. Reed
(D.C.1987),
States,
973,
(D.C.1982),
531 A.2d
979
ed
States,
1173,
452 A.2d
1176
United
has
Supreme Court
established
denied,
“[t]he
839,
rt.
464 U.S.
104 S.Ct.
ce
any
(1983).
questioning
the refusal to allow
132,
“[D]espite
“The trial ... has discre steps Smith’s toe and momentari- in determining corn, tion whether particular ly pain evi inflicts a little Smith’s dence is relevant or motive.” might reasonably provide a motive for State, him, White v. push Md. Smith to curse Jones or even to (1991) (quoting person reasonable would view it as McCoRmick on Evi Indeed, § supra, eyes dence, a motive to throw acid into Jones’ great court has “a deal of discretion” through to shoot Jones the heart. The making present may determination. Id. case “[T]he be as extreme as showing burden of the relevance of partic foregoing hypothetical, expres- but an *6 ular to evidence the issue of bias rests on sion of in dissatisfaction with Coles’ role State, proponent.” Chambers 866 the in proceeding discrimination which S.W.2d 26-27 (Tex.Crim.App.1993). merely Goodwine was a witness reason- Moreover, “not everything ably appeared judge tends to show to the trial provide to bias, may very and courts exclude evidence that a unpersuasive motive indeed for only marginally purpose.” helping is useful for this frame a to man for armed v. Lanz-Terry, by fabricating five-year-old State a N.W.2d sale of a (Minn.1995). tending only handgun.6 Athough judge “Evidence the did id., According dissenting colleague, Judge suggests, 6. to our Ruiz also that reversal unnecessary was for the defense to show that though is even "need warranted there was no proffered magnitude "the was of a appel- to doubt that Goodwine sold a 'framing’ would cause Goodwine to assist in they together lant at some time while worked Post, appellant.” surely p. 494. But an im- Corps.” (Emphasis origi- the for Marine in partial jury rationally could not conclude that nal.) hypothesis Her seems to be al- mistakenly had believed he though purchased weapon from handgun, sold Coles or that Goodwine be- Goodwine, Coles’ discrimination suit could lieved that he the serial number of the knew angered have so Goodwine that he would record, weapon when he did not. On this provide weapon serial number for the false telling Goodwine was the or either truth just inculpate he sold to Coles Coles in an intentionally framed Coles for an armed rob- robbery. armed We are satisfied that this bery, judge reasonably and the concluded that possibility sufficiently is remote to ensure that proffered Coles had not kind evidence it, impartial jury reasonably no reasonably jury believe of bias which could lead the framing judge reasonably believe that such deliberate had and the so conclude. occurred. terms, It is that alle- case. no secret precisely these crimination express herself was are that this is what she of unlawful discrimination tend gations we satisfied point by attention, re driving at. To articulate proposed and the capture one’s Barnes, language to this court’s a signif- sort would have supra, proffer the defense did not amount jury. of the potential distracting icant bias,” at personal to the “specific circumstances, perceive we these Under lay a foundation for cross- required on the of discretion legal error or abuse proffer of bias examination bias. judge’s trial part.7 best, at and thus inad marginal quite equate require judge permit III. Lanz-Terry, inquiry. line of Cf. CONCLUSION 640; Jackson, su supra, N.W.2d at
pra, 457 S.E.2d
reasons,
foregoing
For the
Coles’ convic-
Moreover, the
trial
situation before the
hereby
are
tions
potential
rife with the
for confu-
Affirmed.
sion
the issue and for distraction of
from the
whether Coles
RUIZ,
Judge, dissenting:
Associate
guilty:
innocent or
law,
principles
well-established
Under
Impeachment
is
a dispassionate
present
is
good
proffer
faith
of bias
once
study
capacities
and character of
court,
to the
should learn
ed
trial
tradi-
regarded
is
our
bias,
probative
of a witness’s
unless
credibility.
tion
an attack
upon
“substantially
value of the
out
evidence
adversary system
Under our
of trials
by
prejudice.
risk of undue
weighed”
an
opponent
opportu-
must be
Clayborne v.
nity
to meet
attack
evidence
(D.C.2000).
case,
de
sustaining
rehabilitating
witness.
962-63
that Kurt
proffered
fense counsel
Good-
§
supra,
Evidence,
McCormick
wine,
prosecution
witness
important
(emphasis
original). Accordingly,
attempt to secure
government’s
second
permitted
the line
robbery,
Paul Coles’s conviction for
defense,
proffered
pros
testi
was biased
Coles. Goodwine
ecution would
had the
to reha
*7
very
fied that he had sold to Coles
Goodwine,
presumably
bilitate
would
and
robbery.
in the
weapon used
by attempting
so
that
done
show
a
supported by
of bias was
sworn
proffer
his comments about Coles were accurate
affidavit,
signed by Goodwine
several
justified
and
and
did
reflect
against
months
he testified
before
defendant.
expressed
animus
in which the witness
then have been
from the
diverted
through the
appellant. Viewed
guilt
innocence or
to the merits
Coles’
trial court did
legal
dispute
proper
and
lens—which
a collateral
between Goodwine
sufficient,
proffer
arose in the context of a dis- not do—the
which
primarily
lapse
being
on the
evidently thought
implausible,
dissent as
based
7. The
we,
and
that
would fabricate
On the con-
so do
Goodwine
sale.
of time since the
handgun
the sale of a
five
earlier
that
would invent
trary, notion
way
devastating
order
retaliate
in such
simply
one
several
so old transaction
against Coles’ actions in the discrimination
improbability
showing the
of the de-
factors
dialogue
case.
between
We do
read the
theory.
fense’s entire “motive to fabricate”
quoted
court
counsel
1 of the
and
footnote
trial judge precluded the cross-examina
The majority, recognizing this well-es-
delving
tion as
matter,”
into a “collateral
tablished principle
conceding
that the
trial judge
without
“allowed no
assessing prejudice.
light
cross-examination
regarding [the
purported
witness’s]
bias”
defense counsel’s proffer and
impor
against appellant, nevertheless decides
tance of the allegedly
biased
err,
the trial judge did not
finding
jury, not the trial judge, should have de
justification in
oft-repeated
maxim that
termined
weight,
what
if any, to afford
a trial court retains broad discretion to
Goodwine’s testimony
light
of the bias
impose “reasonable limits” on cross-exami-
he had
appellant. See id. at 963
See, e.g.,
nation.
Brown v. United
(“[Pjrobative
bias,
evidence of
proba
like
(D.C.1996).
683 A.2d
this,
While
tive evidence generally, should not be ex
general
true,
as a
proposition, just
it is
cluded because of ‘crabbed notions of rele
as certain
permissible
that “the
scope of
”)
vance or
juries.’
excessive mistrust of
cross-examination ‘must be limited with
(quoting Allen v. United
the utmost caution and solicitude for the
1219, 1224(D.C.1992)(en banc)).
”
defendant’s Sixth
rights.’
Amendment
Springer,
I. The
Cross-Examination
any
nile
embarrassment
offenders and.
a. The Proffer Bias
witness).
counsel met his initial
Defense
burden
judge
denied defense counsel’s
The
par-
a
for
proposing
examine witness
request to cross-examine Goodwine based
tiality by providing
good
a
faith
basis
erroneous belief that
founda-
her
demonstrably
believe that Goodwine was
had
been met.
requirement
tional
not
against
biased
Coles.
not
Counsel
it
judge
found
precisely,
More
communicated to the trial
his well-
discrimination
difficult to believe
prosecution
founded belief that the
witness
against Good-
brought by appellant
suit
against
biased
Coles because
had
have
employer
wine’s
Good-
against
filed a
suit
discrimination
“perjure
himself’ about
wine the motive
Navy, where
at Marine
Goodwine worked
majority
to Coles.
sale
Corps Headquarters,
produced
but also
also
to believe that Coles’s suit
seems
(the
documentary evidence
witness’s affi-
against
Navy
“marginal”
because
davit) which corroborated that belief.
provided
very unpersuasive
“a
motive
Though
against
all
employ-
lawsuits
an
a
helping
to frame man
indeed
necessarily
er would
sour
employee
five-year-
a
by fabricating
armed
plaintiff,
it was clear
handgun.”
ante at 490-
old sale of
did. In an
one
affidavit filed
an admin-
They
points,
miss two crucial
one
proceeding concerning
charge
istrative
degree. The
another of
perspective and
discrimination,
that,
stated
relevant
whether
deleterious effect
“[Coles]
had sufficient reason
believes Goodwine
morale of the section
none of us
because
outright
testifying
untruth in
fabricate an
could understand
motivation and we
that he sold the
used
could all
heading.”
see where
but whether Goodwine’s
lawsuit, according
proffer,
to counsel’s
should
evident animus
Coles
supervisor,
implicated Goodwine’s
(who
that it could
been revealed to
so
possibly gave Goodwine
relationship
“the
be-
whether
consider
management
called as a
witness
might
...
party
and witness
proceeding) further motiva-
tween
administrative
slant,
unconsciously
in order to lead the witness
testify
tion to
*9
otherwise,
in favor of
testimony
his
curry
with
Presented with
favor
his boss.
Guzman,
against
party.”
proffer,
trial court should have
Abel,
States
upon
(quoting United
excluded the cross-examination
45, 52,
U.S.
Goodwine sold a to appellant at some time they together while worked for the putting Even aside the sufficiency of Corps. Marine But knowledge with the proffer, Coles’s the trial erred in not that Goodwine held a against appel bias allowing requested bringing lant for against lawsuit his em primarily because her decision was based ployer which Goodwine felt “had a delete upon consideration of irrelevant and section,” rious effect on the morale of [his] improper factor. Defense prof- counsel a reasonable might have more careful that, January fered ly scrutinized the veracity of Goodwine’s had filed discrimination claim statement that he identify weap (for former employer whom Goodwine still on used in the as the worked), produced and had an affidavit he sold years Coles several earlier because signed January Goodwine had he remembered its serial number. “The year 2000—the same testified in exposure may of bias be a crucial determi case—in relation to that employment dis- nant in jury’s assessment of the trust conference, crimination claim. At a bench worthiness of a Clayborne, witness.” judge erroneously focused on the (internal A.2d at 962 quotation and cita date of Goodwine’s affidavit in relation to omitted). tions It is not for specu us to alleged gun.1 sale of the fact late as to whether would have may Goodwine have sold the to appel- accepted appellant’s reasoning line of years lant five or more before Coles filed counsel permitted fully Navy defense the action bearing had no it; rather, present jurors “the were enti- on whether held a 1. The Court: When was the suit filed? because none of us could understand his motivation and we could all see where this January Defense Counsel: In of 1999. heading.” That’s where the bias is long The Court: So it was how after this stating involved. He's that Mr. Coles' ac- gun]? incident [the sale of the - tions contributed to testifying Defense Counsel: The man is The Court: When was the affidavit? today. affidavit, January Defense Counsel: The signed 14th of 2000. That's when he it. The Court: The suit was filed in '99? Right, testify- Defense Counsel: but he’s Prosecutor: I believe that Mr. Goodwine ing today. management was called as a witness The Court: And so? Department Navy in an administra- goes Defense Counsel: So it to bias. I proceeding. tive -mean Well, The Court: I don’t see how give this witness motive to favor person The Court: How is this involved? Government and to lie about a sale that Is he to have been the discrimina- happened several earlier. A suit that is tor? brought and an that’s No, Defense Counsel: but he did—he did affidavit going I don’t see how that would—it's stating make some statements that —his ex- try some act collateral matter. words are Mr. Coles—"He had a delete- added). (emphasis
rious effect on the morale of the section *10 that his comments attempting that action show initiating civil justified in against him accurate and time Goodwine testified Coles were the about sub- proper criminal trial. To be the Coles. the not reflect bias” and did ject inquiry, giving of an incident rise impeach- This ante at 491. confuses See precede testimony need the with untrue statements proof with of ment allegedly biased. See person the who is impeach- for bias. Where impeachment 378, 381 v. United Best bias, absolutely no it makes is for ment (D.C.1974). the rela- temporal The closer Coles’s action difference whether tionship giving between the incident rise genuinely under- employer former his trial, the the probative. bias and more fellow of Goodwine’s mined the morale that majority acknowledge not The does of evaluating the possibility workers. incorrectly the analyzed trial the bias, “subjective the belief’ it is witness’s rela- proffer by focusing temporal on the issue, it is to the “since is central tionship purported between the witness’s Scull, produce can this belief that bias.” gun testi- sale of the five before his Thus, only pertinent the 1165. trial, mony relationship at the criminal whether, at the time was consideration appellant’s proffer that was irrelevant subjec- gave testimony, Goodwine he year the same testified that that Goodwine had harmed his work tively thought Coles criminal also against Coles trial he unit, regardless of whether Goodwine in an that “had a swore affidavit way. doubt justified feeling No deleterious effect on the morale of right have would had government Navy of the of section” which Goodwine depth of resentment probe Goodwine’s Thus, part. the trial court erred every in which case it because “failed to consider a relevant raised. But there is no record basis bias is factor,” and fac- upon improper “relied cross-exam- majority’s for the concern that States, 398 tor.” See Johnson v. United diverted ination for bias would have (D.C.1979).2 354, 365 the em- jury’s attention into the merits of Fading grasp the relevance of claim, actual discrimination or its ployment proffer, was more con- on work unit. effect Goodwine’s matter,” trying cerned over a “collateral justifies the majority The also though exploration even there was on judge’s exclusion of cross-examination scope the mat- questioning what the unlawful “allegations ground majority sup- need ter would to be. capture one’s atten- tend to discrimination plies judge’s its own rationale for the trial tion, and the matters, trying about collateral concern significant potential have had a would had stating that the cross-examination at 491. jury.” ante allowed, distracting have government would so, it not be a “by assuming this is to rehabilitate Even Goodwine agree "age” armed majority to think could 2. The seems (five years) charges, sale to which Goodwine held in The second PFCV 1999. veracity, the trial, testified, testified somehow attests was held in at which Goodwine really implication being that if Goodwine had years after the more than three October appellant, wanted to frame he would gun to be the sale robbery. For armed See ante more recent sale. fabricated relevant, preceded the 1997 to have lying must have at note Even a witness noted, robbery. As armed regard charged, however. for the crime some sale; merely specify date of place took in "1994-1995.” testified that it was trial, July where the 1997. The first *11 ever, sufficient reason to preclude bias cross- apply and we the constitutional (as altogether examination opposed to rea- Chapman harmless error test of v. Califor- sonably limiting government’s nia, re-di- 18, 22-2, 824, 386 U.S. 87 S.Ct. rect). I precisely note that it is because (1967), L.Ed.2d 705 whenever “the allegations of discrimination are notewor- precludes court ‘a meaningful degree of thy that it is reasonable to think that the cross-examination’ establish bias.” believed, could well have as counsel Grayton 274, v. United 745 A.2d proffered, that Coles’s discrimination law- (D.C.2000) Flores, (quoting 698 A.2d at captured suit the attention of Goodwine 479). and his fellow workers. case, In though even defense coun- sum, In proffer of bias in this case sel was able to ask about the lack of require court, sufficient to the trial documentary evidence of Goodwine’s sale absent a showing of prejudice, serious to of and Goodwine’s allow cross-examination on the issue of inability year to recall the of the sale or Goodwine’s documented resentment to price at which he sold the —deficien-
wards
judicial
Coles. An exercise of
dis
cies which the
easily
dismiss as
cretion,
broad,
however
will
be reversed
unimportant details —the trial court’s rul-
it “appears
it was exercised on ing prohibited defense counsel from expos-
grounds,
reasons, clearly
or for
untenable
ing Goodwine’s bias and motive to lie.
or to an
clearly
extent
unreasonable.” Thus, an entirely separate line of relevant
Johnson, 398 A.2d at
(quoting
Brin
questioning
precluded,
depriving ap-
Harkins,
(Del.
ghurst
122 A.
pellant
“meaningful
of a
degree of cross-
1923)). I thus conclude that the trial court
id.; Flores,
examination.” See
698 A.2d at
erred in excluding the bias cross-examina
479; Scull,
Therefore,
were men to the where
robbery place took who were observed wearing camouflage
police pants
victim described were worn one of Phyllis BARON, Respondent. In re J. physical robbers.3 There was no evidence tying robbery. Coles to the armed When Member the Bar of the District A first government tried Appeals. Re- On Columbia Court evidence, with time was unsuccessful port and Recommendation rob- securing conviction on Responsibility Board on Professional retrial, bery charge. where or PFCV On 131-00). (BDN brought additional evidence testimony against Coles was Goodwine’s No. 02-BG — 222. gun
that he used the armed had sold of Appeals. District of Court Columbia Coles, a robbery to conviction was secured. in closing argu- Defense efforts counsel’s Sept. Submitted testimony impeach ment Goodwine’s 10, 2002. Decided Oct. gun appellant, about his sale questioning memory his recall from of a he had sold several
serial number earlier, greatly would have been
strengthened if he had been able to show ap- ill-disposed against
that Goodwine was govern-
pellant possibly partial and—the could infer —motivated
ment certainty used say with weapon he had same camouflage wearing only one man a call mentioned impeached with 3. That officer pants. night of which he made on the