Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Taking the 5th

The defendant's on trial for felonious assault with a gun.  A gun isn't found, and there's no evidence that the defendant used one, other than the testimony of the victim and his girlfriend:  no gunshot residue test, no shell casings, no medical evidence consistent with a gunshot wound.  The defendant's son has been indicted in a separate case for tampering with evidence, under the theory that he was the one who hid the gun.  In the defendant's case, the prosecution wants to call the son as a witness.  The son's lawyer informs everybody that the son will take the 5th; the prosecutor calls him nonetheless.  Problem?

Yesterday, the 8th District ruled there was, in State v. Oldham, and reversed the defendant's conviction.  The case presented the question of whether the state can call a witness, knowing that he's going to invoke his 5th Amendment privilege.

The answer to that question isn't quite as clear as it probably should be.  I handled the appeal, and when I first researched the issue I was surprised to find that the two leading Ohio Supreme Court cases on it both dealt with whether the defendant could call a witness who was going to take the 5th.  There's dicta in several cases about a prosecutor not being allowed to do it, but nothing definitive in Ohio law.

The court does an excellent job going beyond Ohio law, summarizing the US Supreme Court rulings on it.  To be sure, they're not hard-and-fast rules, either; the court sums up the main test articulated in a 1963 USSC decision this way:

First, the Court stated that error may be based upon prosecutorial misconduct when the government makes a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from the use of the testimonial privilege. Second, error may arise when, in the circumstances of a given case, inferences from a witness' refusal to answer added critical weight to the prosecution's case in a form not subject to cross-examination, and thus unfairly prejudiced the defendant.

What really sold that point in my case was the prosecutor himself; in closing argument, he'd addressed the issue of the son's invocation of the 5th Amendment as follows:

Gun. The big thing here is the gun is not recovered. Where is the gun? I think we know where the gun is. Mr. Reese [the defendant's son] had the gun. He told you he was - he told the defense he's under indictment for hiding the gun. It's called obstruction of justice. Okay. He tells you he was there, and he kind of told you his version of it, but then he decided to acknowledge his Fifth Amendment rights. You can make of that what you want.

He was a stand-up guy about it, though:  he readily acknowledged in oral argument that it wasn't his finest hour. 

A tip of the hat to the court: as far as Ohio cases go, Oldham is probably the most lucid exposition on the subject.  This type of situation is uncommon, but it does come up from time to time, so it's a good decision to keep handy.  The nice thing about it, too, is that it's pretty clear-cut, and it's unanimous.  It's been my experience that if a judge is presented with a legal question in the middle of a trial, he's going to be guided by two considerations:  First, he doesn't want to get reversed, and second, he doesn't want to spend a lot of time wading through a bunch of opinions to decide the question.  If you've got a situation where the state wants to put a witness who's going to take the 5th on the stand, and you can hand the judge a copy of Oldham and say, "Well, judge, that's the same thing the prosecutor did here, and the court of appeals reversed," that's probably all you're going to need to do.

Search

Recent Entries

  • April 26, 2017
    MIA
    Like Mark Twain, rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. Except I am pretty sure he's actually dead, while I am not, and for that matter, nobody's spreading rumors that I am. Great lead, huh? The nice thing about...
  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech