In re J.W.

• Decision Date: 02 September 2021
• Docket Number: No. 18-FS-1353,18-FS-1353
• Citation: 258 A.3d 195
• Parties: IN RE J.W., Appellant.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

258 A.3d 195

IN RE J.W., Appellant.

No. 18-FS-1353

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Argued May 20, 2021

Decided September 2, 2021

Claire Pavlovic, Public Defender Service, with whom Samia Fam and Jaclyn S. Frankfurt, Public Defender Service, were on the briefs, for appellant.

Samson J. Schatz, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Karl A. Racine, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, Loren L. AliKhan, Solicitor General, Caroline S. Van Zile, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Carl J. Schifferle, Deputy Solicitor General, Graham E. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, and Andrew J. Delaplane, Assistant Attorney General, were on the brief for appellee.

Before Glickman and McLeese, Associate Judges, and Fisher, Senior Judge.

McLeese, Associate Judge:

After a bench trial, the trial court found that appellant J.W., who was a juvenile, was involved in offenses including murder and armed robbery. J.W. argues among other things that his constitutional right to cross-examine the witnesses against him was violated. We agree, and we therefore vacate the judgment.

I.

On December 18, 2017, police responding to an emergency call found sixteen-year-old J.A.S. lying on a sidewalk, without shoes on. J.A.S. had been shot twice and died from his wounds. Officers recovered shell casings and cartridges from a nearby basketball court. The casings and cartridges had all been fired from a single firearm.

Ten days later, Mr. J.M. contacted the police and claimed to have information about the shooting. Mr. J.M. was incarcerated in the D.C. Jail at the time. Evidence from recorded jail calls indicated that on the night of the shooting Mr. J.M. spoke with his twin daughters Mg. J. and Ml. J., who were fifteen years old, and their close friend K.C., who was around seventeen years old. In that conversation Ml. J. said that the group had seen the shooting, which had been committed by a group of older boys who lived "around our way." At the time of the shooting, J.W. was fifteen, the same age as the twins and younger than K.C. At no point in the conversation did anyone identify J.W. as having been involved.

Over the following weeks, Mr. J.M. had a number of phone calls with the twins or their aunt, Ms. P.J. In those phone calls, Mr. J.M. explained that his goal was to exchange information about the shooting for a $25,000 reward and for a reduction in his sentence. When Mr. J.M. asked Ml. J. what she would tell the police, Ml. J. said that she did not know what had happened and that they needed to "figure out one story." Mr. J.M. told the twins that he did not want them to speak to the police until they had met with him first. Ms. P.J. said that she had told the twins not to speak with the police without their father present. Ms. P.J. emphasized the importance of getting the reward money and trying to help Mr. J.M. Ms. P.J. also indicated that she thought the reward money might be a blessing.

In January 2018, Mr. J.M. met with the police and said that his daughters had called him on the night of the shooting and told him that J.W. was the shooter. That statement was apparently false, because the twins did not identify J.W. as the shooter in the recorded conversations on the night of the shooting. Mr. J.M. said that he wanted reward money for his daughters and a sentence reduction for himself. Mr. J.M. indicated that he wanted to meet with the twins before they spoke to the police.

In a subsequent phone conversation with the twins, Mr. J.M. said that he was going to meet with Ml. J. in person; told Mg. J. to talk to Ml. J. and "follow the script"; said that he could not talk about it over the phone; and said that he would make sure they "get a cut."

Prosecutors and investigators met with the twins in March 2018, with Ms. P.J. present. They discussed both the reward money and sentencing benefits for Mr. J.M. The twins testified before a grand jury the same day.

Ms. P.J. testified at trial that on the night of the shooting she heard gunshots. Less than fifteen minutes later, Mg. J. and Ml. J. ran into her house crying hysterically. Ms. P.J. asked the twins what was wrong, and the twins said that J.W. had shot J.A.S. Ms. P.J. denied that the twins would lie for their father or that her testimony was affected by the $25,000 reward. Ms. P.J. acknowledged that she had spoken to J.W. about "mess[ing] with" Mg. J. and Ml. J., including in connection with stealing basketballs, food, a phone charger, and a bike.

Mg. J. testified as follows. Her friend J.A.S. was playing basketball with others when a group of older boys arrived and stole a basketball from somebody on the court. Sometime after that, J.W. and a person identified as C-Nut demanded J.A.S.’s sneakers, which were red Nike Air Jordans. J.W. pointed a gun at J.A.S.’s head, and J.W. and C-Nut attempted to remove J.A.S.’s sneakers. When J.A.S. resisted, J.W., C-Nut, and a third person fought with J.A.S. J.W. pulled the trigger, but bullets fell to the ground. Mg. J. told J.A.S. to run, which he did. J.W. followed J.A.S. and fired the gun from the edge of the basketball court. Following the shooting, Mg. J. and others walked toward where J.A.S. had fled and saw J.W. walking with C-Nut, who was carrying J.A.S.’s sneakers. When they reached the twins’ house, the group saw J.A.S. on the ground with blood on his shirt and his sneakers gone. Mg. J.’s uncle called the police and told the twins to leave before the police arrived. The twins left but returned to the house via an alley a few minutes later. Mg. J. did not speak to the police on the day of the shooting.

Mg. J. admitted that she loved her father and that he told her to be on board with his plan and follow the script. She denied, however, that he told her what to say to the police, and she also denied that she would falsely accuse someone of murder to help her father. She admitted to having falsely told the grand jury that she did not know the amount of the reward, but she denied that she would falsely accuse someone of murder for money. At the time of trial, Mg. J. faced four counts of robbery and armed robbery for allegedly stealing cell phones. The District stipulated that Mg. J.’s attorney had asked about possible benefits for Mg. J.’s testimony and had been told that Mg. J.’s cooperation would be taken into account. Mg. J. denied that she had any reason to dislike J.W., but did mention an incident in which J.W. had taken her sister's bike.

K.C. testified to having seen the shooting, and his account was largely consistent with Mg. J.’s account, although there were some differences on various details. K.C. identified J.W. as the shooter and described J.W. as wearing a green jacket. K.C. denied having any animosity toward J.W.

K.C. said that he and the twins were best friends and that he considered them to be like family. K.C. considered Mr. J.M. to be like an uncle, and K.C. had visited Mr. J.M. in jail. K.C. acknowledged that Mr. J.M. had told K.C. to tell the police that K.C. wanted Mr. J.M to come home. K.C. also acknowledged that Mr. J.M. had talked about splitting the reward money. K.C. denied, however, that Mr. J.M. had told him what to say in court.

Ml. J. was called by the defense as an adverse witness. She acknowledged that she was close to her father. She further acknowledged that her father had come up with a plan to get the $25,000 reward and to get early release from jail. She denied that she was influenced by that plan. Ml. J. acknowledged that she did not initially identify J.W. as the shooter in the jail calls, but she explained that she was aware that the calls were recorded and that she had not wanted to be a witness. Ml. J. acknowledged having had problems with J.W. in the past, including about a bike. Ml. J. said, however, that she would not lie about J.W. and that she and J.W. got along.

Foreign DNA was found under J.A.S.’s fingernails, but J.W. was excluded as a contributor. The gun used in the shooting was later found as a result of an investigation into an armed robbery that occurred about a month after the shooting in this case. That robbery also involved a group of people who stole sneakers, among other things, and one of the robbers was wearing red Nike Air Jordans and a green jacket. Police discovered a gun during a search of the house of one of the robbers, and that gun ballistically matched the gun used in the shooting of J.A.S. The detective investigating the shooting of J.A.S. was not aware of the details of the later robbery and did not investigate whether any of the four people who pleaded guilty to that robbery might have been involved in the shooting of J.A.S. The detective also did not try to corroborate the twins’ version of events or speak with anyone else who was present at the scene of the shooting, including K.C.

In written findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court acknowledged that J.W. had "raised a number of non-frivolous challenges to the evidence against him." The trial court concluded that Mr. J.M. had a plan for his daughters and K.C. to testify against J.W. in order to receive a reward and help Mr. J.M get out of jail sooner. The trial court, however, credited the testimony of the twins and K.C. that they did not testify falsely to support that plan. The trial court stated that J.W. had not offered a plausible reason why the twins and K.C. would falsely accuse J.W. specifically. Although the trial court acknowledged inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses, the trial court viewed those inconsistencies as mostly on unimportant matters. The trial court acknowledged that the twins did not identify J.W. as the shooter in their first call to Mr. J.W., but the trial court credited Ml. J.’s explanation that she was afraid to identify J.W. on a recorded call. The trial court also gave weight to Ms. P.J.’s testimony that the twins identified J.W. as the shooter soon after the shooting. The trial court acknowledged shortcomings in the investigation of the...