8/12/2019 Whittington v. U.S., 1994

1/2

DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA COURT OP APPEALSNo. 93-CM-S6S

WENDEll WHITTINGTON, APPEllANT,v . M-70S-93

UNITED STATES, APPEllEE.

:j -"r---...... ----.. L..;;;..::-r JUl 2 1994 [~ U T OF APPEALS

Appeal from the Superior court of theDis t r i c t of ColumbiaCriminal Division

(Hon. Lee F. Sa t t e r f i e ld , Tria l Judge)(Argued June 10, 1994 Decided July 21, 1994)

Before WAGNER, ChiefJudge and FARREll and KING, AssodateJudgesMEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appealing his convict ion for possession of a prohibi ted weapon(D.C. Code 22-3214 (b) and -3215), appel lan t ass igns as e r ro rthe t r i a l judge 's refusa l to declare a mis t r ia l (or to grant apost -verdict motion for a new t r i a l ) on the bas is of improperrebut t a l argument by the prosecutor and ju ror misconduct orpar t i a l i ty . We aff i rm.The prosecutor ' s al lusion in rebut t a l to appe l lan t ' s pr io rconvict ion for possession of a prohib i ted weapon was framed byspec i f i c reference to appel l an t ' s cred ib i l i ty ("But when you' reth inking of c red ib i l i ty , and j us t cred ib i l i ty alone . " ) .

Considering also the l imi t ing ins t ruc t ions which the t r i a l judgetwice gave, and the fac t tha t the jury was aware from both thedefense and the prosecution case of the existence of the pr iorconvict ion, we f ind no abuse of disc re t ion in the judge 's re fusa l

Judge WAGNER was an AssodateJudge of th is court a t the t ime ofargument. Her s ta tus changed to ChiefJudge on June 14, 1994.

8/12/2019 Whittington v. U.S., 1994

2/2

2to declare a mistr ial . E.g. Sobinv. UnitedStates 606 A.2d 1029,1032(D.C. 1992).

Regarding appellant 's claims of juror impropriety orpar t ia l i ty, the record demonstrates tha t the t r i a l judge thoroughlyexplored these issues in two hearings, one pr ior to entry of theverdic t and one in response to appel lant ' s motion for a new t r i a l .The judge thus complied with the rule tha t the remedy foral legat ions of juror bias i s a hearing to determine whether themisconduct actually resulted in prejudice. Leeperv. United States 579A.2d 695, 698 D.C. 1990). The judge's conclusion tha t none of theevents ref lected in the jury notes demonstrated juror bias orprejudice with respect to the ju ry s consideration of the weaponscharge i s ful ly supported by the careful reasoning in the judge 'spost - t r ia l memorandum, upon which we rely. Here too there was noabuse of discret ion in the refusal to grant a new t r i a l . E.g.Derrington v. United States 488 A.2d 1314, 1339 (D.C. 1985), eert. denied486 U.S. 1009 (1989).

Copies to:Honorable Lee F. Sat terf ieldClerk, Superior CourtRichard Todd Hunter, Esquire801 North p i t t StreetSuite 209, The Port RoyalAlexandria, Virginia 22314John R. Fisher, EsquireAssistant United s ta tes Attorney

Affirmed.

FOR THE COURT

w ~ ~Clerk