expert testimony about the modus operandi of drug dealers held admissible because it “tended to corroborate the other officers’ testimony that the transaction between Officer Smith and appellant in fact involved possession of a controlled substance”
How later courts described this case
- expert testimony about the modus operandi of drug dealers held admissible because it “tended to corroborate the other officers’ testimony that the transaction between Officer Smith and appellant in fact involved possession of a controlled substance”
- psychological influence of presence at return of verdict, where jury subject to polling
- defendant has constitutional right to be present at every stage of his trial, including all communications between the judge and jury, which is personal and may be violated even where defense counsel present
- drug dealers often work in teams of two to three to minimize the dangers of robbery and arrest
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROGERS, Associate Judge,
concurring:
The trial court denied the defendant’s request to be present while the jury was read the testimony of the undercover and observing police officers. This evidence constituted the government’s contested evidence and is over seventy pages of the transcript. The defendant was present in the courtroom when the request was denied; he was also on personal recognizance. In denying the request, the court indicated the reading could take place in the courtroom but as other matters were occurring there, “for convenience,” it would be done in the jury room.
This court, sitting en banc, has recently examined a defendant’s right under Super. Ct.Crim.R. 43(a) to be present at all stages of his trial. Boone v. United States, 483 A.2d 1135, 1136-42 (D.C.1984). Accordingly, in light of our broad interpretation of Rule 43(a) in Boone , I join only in that portion of part I B of the opinion which holds that assuming error, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.