Appeal No. 19 -CF-116 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS DARON WINT ...

Appeal No. 19-CF-116

Clerk of the Court

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS Received 12/22/2020 03:38 PM Filed 12/22/2020 03:38 PM

DARON WINT, Appellant, v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee.

Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Criminal Division

BRIEF FOR APPELLANT

SAMIA FAM *LEE R. GOEBES

MIKEL?MEREDITH WEIDMAN PUBLIC DEFENDER SERVICE 633 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 (202) 628-1200 *Counsel for Oral Argument

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Daron Wint was represented in the trial court by Judith Pipe and Jeffrey Stein, who were then both attorneys with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. The government was represented at trial by Assistant United States Attorneys Laura Bach and Christopher Bruckmann. The Honorable Juliet J. McKenna presided over the trial.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page:

ISSUES PRESENTED...............................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND JURISDICTION............................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................3

I. Introduction and Overview.........................................................................3 II. The Evidence at Trial .................................................................................6

A. The Government's Case-in-Chief ....................................................6 i. Evidence Regarding May 13th and 14th.....................................6 ii. The Vehicle Fires ........................................................................9 iii. The DNA Evidence...................................................................10 iv. Other Evidence..........................................................................12

B. The Defense Case...........................................................................16 C. The Government's Rebuttal Case ..................................................23 D. The Defense's Proffered Surrebuttal..............................................25 E. Verdict and Sentencing ..................................................................27 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............................................................................27 ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................30 I. The Trial Court Committed Reversible Error in Denying the Appellant's Request for Surrebuttal. ........................................................30 A. Legal Standards..............................................................................30 B. Williams's Testimony Rebutted Darrell's and Anderson's

Testimonies. ...................................................................................31

i

C. Williams's Testimony Would Have Addressed a New Matter that First Arose During the Government's Rebuttal Case. ............34

D. Even if the Proffered Testimony Did Not Pertain to a New Matter Raised in Rebuttal, the Trial Court Abused Its Discretion. ......................................................................................40

E. The Error Was Harmful .................................................................41 II. Merger ......................................................................................................47 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................48

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s):

Cases: Baker v. United States, 867 A.2d 988 (D.C. 2005) .......................................... 47-48 Bynum v. United States, 799 A.2d 1188 (D.C. 2002) ....................................... 30-31 * Chaabi v. United States, 544 A.2d 1247 (D.C. 1988) .............................................31 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967)............................................................41 Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) .................................................................30 Dockery v. United States, 746 A.2d 303 (D.C. 2000) .............................................33 * Edge v. State, 393 So. 2d 1337 (Miss. 1981) ........................................ 34-35, 38-39 Garris v. United States, 465 A.2d 817 (D.C. 1983) ................................................47 * Gregory v. United States, 393 A.2d 132 (D.C. 1978)........................... 29-31, 34, 40 Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) .....................................................30 Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C. 1979)................................. 29, 40-41 Jones v. United States, 625 A.2d 281 (D.C. 1993)..................................................33 Lee v. United States, 699 A.2d 373 (D.C. 1997) .....................................................47 Martin v. United States, 606 A.2d 120 (D.C. 1991)................................................34 Matthews v. United States, 13 A.3d 1181 (D.C. 2011) .................................... 47-48 Roberts v. United States, 213 A.3d 593 (D.C. 2019)...............................................41 Scott v. United States, 975 A.2d 831 (D.C. 2009) ...................................................30 United States v. Gaines, 170 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 1999) ..............................................35

iii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download