Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)

Citation: Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Parent Document: Bridges v. Clark, 59 A.3d 978 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-01-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5146099/bridges-v-clark/ ↗

Full Text

1,408 chars

Had Ms. Bridges been able to introduce evidence that there had in fact been a hole in the roof in 2008, she would have been able to argue to the jury that Mr. Clark had testified falsely when he claimed that he had never found a leak in the roof. Such an argument would have held out the prospect of undermining Mr. Clark’s credibility more generally. Cf. Rosser v. United States, 381 A.2d 598, 609 n. 12 (D.C. 1977) (“impeachment of a defendant by showing that he appeared to lie on the stand is usually devastating”); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269-70, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959) (“The jury’s estimate of the truthfulness and reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence.... It is of no consequence that the falsehood bore upon the witness’ credibility rather than directly upon defendant’s guilt. A lie is a lie, no matter what its subject ....”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Given that this case turned on the comparative credibility of Mr. Clark and Ms. Bridges, we cannot say with the requisite assurance that exclusion of the Love affidavit was harmless. Cf. R & G Orthopedic Appliances & Prosthetics, Inc. v. Curtin, 596 A.2d 530, 540-41 (D.C.1991) (concluding error was not harmless where trial court erroneously restricted impeachment of plaintiffs key witness and plaintiff’s case largely rested on testimony of that witness).7

Other Sections in This Document (47)

Full Text