ACCEPTED
03-15-00083-CV
7916404
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
11/19/2015 7:05:28 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
No. 03-15-00083-CV
_______________________________________________________
FILED IN
3rd COURT OF APPEALS
In the Third Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS
Austin, Texas 11/19/2015 7:05:28 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
_______________________________________________________
Clerk
CRAIG A. WASHINGTON
Appellant,
v.
COMMISSION FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINE
Appellees.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the District Court of Bastrop County 335th Judicial District,
Cause No. 29,123
_______________________________________________________
Reply Brief
_______________________________________________________
Michael A. Stafford Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
Texas Bar No. 18996970 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 2000
mstafford@gardere.com Houston, Texas 77002
Katharine D. David Tel: 713.276.5500
Texas Bar No. 24045749 Fax: 713.276.5555
kdavid@gardere.com
Stacy R. Obenhaus COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Texas Bar No. 15161570 CRAIG A. WASHINGTON
sobenhaus@gardere.com
John MacVane
Texas Bar No. 24085444
jmacvane@gardere.com
Table of Contents
Page(s)
Index of Authorities................................................................................................4
Summary of Reply ..................................................................................................5
Reply .........................................................................................................................7
I. A clarification of the issues: The Commission does not dispute
that the trial court erroneously excluded evidence of Mr.
Washington’s good character......................................................................7
II. Mr. Washington directly refuted Mr. Gobert and Ms. Randle’s
version of events—to the extent the trial court’s limits on his
testimony permitted. ..................................................................................15
III. There was nothing particularly “compelling” about Mr. Gobert
and Ms. Randle’s testimony that would have rendered evidence
of Mr. Washington’s character inconsequential.....................................20
IV. The record, viewed as a whole, establishes that Mr. Washington
would have introduced compelling and overwhelming
character evidence if permitted to do so. ................................................22
V. Evidence of Mr. Washington’s excellent reputation was also
admissible to support his credibility as a witness. ................................24
A. It would be inapropriate to assume that evidence of Mr.
Washington’s truthful character would not have altered
the verdict as to the other charges against Mr.
Washington. ......................................................................................25
B. The Commission directly attacked Mr. Washington’s
credibility, which permitted him to introduce evidence of
his good character under Rule 608(a)............................................27
C. Mr. Washington’s counsel preserved rehabilitation of Mr.
Washington as a witness as a basis for admitting
character evidence. ...........................................................................29
2
VI. Mr. Washington stands on his prior briefing with regard to his
remaining arguments. ................................................................................35
Prayer ......................................................................................................................35
Certificate of Service .............................................................................................37
Certificate of Compliance ....................................................................................37
3
Index of Authorities
Page(s)
CASES
Arkoma Basin Exploration Co., Inc. v. FMF Associates 1990-A, Ltd.,
249 S.W.3d 380 (Tex. 2008)..............................................................................34
Barina v. Barina,
No. 03-08-00341-CV, 2008 WL 4951224 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov.
21, 2008, no pet.) ...............................................................................................30
Michael v. State,
235 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)...................................................14, 27
Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik,
267 S.W.3d 867, 871 (Tex. 2008)......................................................................23
Thota v. Young,
366 S.W.3d 678 (Tex. 2012)................................................................................2
Wooten v. State,
No. 03-11-00667-CR, 2013 WL 1831571 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 24,
2013, pet. ref’d) .................................................................................................29
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Tex. R. App. P. 9.4 .................................................................................................37
Tex. R. App. P. 33.1 ...........................................................................................30, 5
Tex. R. App. P. 44.1 .........................................................................................15, 26
Tex. R. Evid. 404 .............................................................................................passim
Tex. R. Evid. 608(a).........................................................................................passim
4
Summary of Reply
Reputation is a lawyer’s stock-in-trade. As members of the bar, we
devote our lives to establishing, maintaining, and preserving our
reputations. Whether before a court, a client, or a colleague, our reputation
is often our most valuable bargaining chip; it is always our most prized.
Craig Washington knew this. He spent forty-five years fighting for
those who most needed an advocate and exemplifying the best of our
profession. Over the course of his career, he represented those most in need
for free. In exchange for this sacrifice, Mr. Washington received something
more valuable to a lawyer than any fee. At every turn and every day, Mr.
Washington invested in his reputation: a reputation characterized by
honesty, integrity, and excellence as an advocate.
In this case, Mr. Washington’s clients called him a liar. The
Commission for Lawyer Discipline charged him with deceit, dishonesty,
and misrepresentation, and attacked his credibility at every opportunity.
When Mr. Washington took the stand in his own defense, he did so
stripped of the reputation that he’d spent a lifetime earning. This man,
who’d sacrificed so much to engender respect and friendship from all
corners of the Texas bar, faced his two accusers alone. He sought to
5
introduce character evidence, and his lawyer clearly articulated multiple
bases for doing so, but his request was denied.
On appeal, the Commission does not dispute that keeping Mr.
Washington’s reputation from the jury was error, but the Commission
contends any error was harmless. Mr. Washington respectfully submits
that few lawyers compelled to stand alone against a former client without
the comfort and support of allegiances earned over a lifetime would agree
with the Commission’s harm analysis. Mr. Washington respectfully
submits that stripping a forty-year lawyer of the stellar reputation that he
spent a lifetime earning cannot be characterized as “harmless.” Nor can
pitting this lawyer alone in a two-on-one swearing contest against
disgruntled clients.
The Rules allowing admission of character evidence exist because the
marks of honesty on which jurors rely everyday are often absent in the
courtroom. All witnesses—whatever their history—guaranty their honesty
by oath alone. To the jury, all oaths appear equal—even though everyone
knows that they are not, and often cannot be.
Excluding character evidence in this case was patently harmful and
that error requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment.
6
Reply
I. A CLARIFICATION OF THE ISSUES: THE COMMISSION DOES NOT DISPUTE
THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCLUDED EVIDENCE OF MR.
WASHINGTON’S GOOD CHARACTER.
The Commission does not argue that the trial court properly
exercised its discretion in excluding evidence of Mr. Washington’s good
character. The parties are in agreement that the Commission accused Mr.
Washington of conduct involving moral turpitude, so Rule 404(a)(1)(B)
entitled him to introduce evidence of his exemplary character. Excluding
this evidence was error.
Ignoring the trial court’s violation Rule 404(a)(1)(B), the commission
instead argues that evidence of Mr. Washington’s good character would
have had no effect on the outcome of this case—a case about whether Mr.
Washington deceived his client (Comm’n Br. at 16-23).
The Commission’s focus on this single charge exposes an important
point about the harm analysis. Mr. Washington devoted significant briefing
to the harmfulness of excluding evidence of his good character across all of
7
the allegations against him, but the Commission largely ignores this
directly conflicting evidence on most of the charges.1
The conflicting evidence on the charges other than deception is
summarized as follows:2
Allegation Mr. Washington’s Commission’s
Evidence Evidence
Mr. Washington Mr. Washington The Commission
neglected a matter testified that he offered no testimony
entrusted to him. properly attended to contradicting Mr.
Mr. Gobert’s case by:3 Washington’s
explanation, but
conducting attempted to impeach
discovery and and contradict him
preparing for trial;4 with various
documents.5
[continued on following page]
1 The allegations against Mr. Washington were (1) neglecting his clients’ case, (2) failing
to keep his clients reasonably informed, (3) failing to promptly comply with requests for
information, (4) failing to surrender papers, and (5) conduct involving deceit,
dishonesty, and misrepresentation (1 CR 140-44).
2 This summary—in varying levels of detail was also laid out in Mr. Washington’s
principal brief at pages 3–11 and 28–30. Mr. Washington incorporates these discussions
of the conflicting evidence herein for all purposes.
3 (See, generally, 4 RR 81:14-114:2).
4 (See 4 RR 94:15-:17).
5 (4 RR 36:15-37:4); (4 RR 45:7-49:18).
8
Allegation Mr. Washington’s Commission’s
Evidence Evidence
Mr. Washington attending the
neglected a matter conflicting murder
entrusted to him. setting instead of Mr.
[continued] Gobert’s setting in
accordance with the
local rules;6
informing the Gobert
court of the conflict
by phone on two
occasions;7
informing opposing
counsel of the
conflict;8
sending a substitute
attorney to the
Gobert pretrial;9
[continued on following page]
6 (4 RR 46:7-48:1).
7 (4 RR 35:18-36:3); (8 RR P’s Exh 18, .pdf 83).
8 (4 RR 54:5-:9).
9 (4 RR 35:23-36:3).
9
Allegation Mr. Washington’s Commission’s
Evidence Evidence
Mr. Washington moving to reinstate
neglected a matter after the court
entrusted to him. improperly
[continued] dismissed the case
for want of
prosecution without
notice or a hearing;10
and
appealing the court’s
ruling after it denied
the motion to
reinstate (again
while improperly
denying Mr. Gobert
his right to a
hearing)11
10 (8 RR P’s Exh 18, .pdf 85-89).
11 (8 RR P’s Exh 17, .pdf 60-64).
10
Allegation Mr. Washington’s Commission’s
Evidence Evidence
Mr. Washington failed Mr. Washington Ms. Randle testified
to keep his clients testified that: that Mr. Washington
reasonably informed.12 never informed her that
he notified Ms. the district court had
Randle of the case’s dismissed Mr. Gobert’s
dismissal after it case or that he had
occurred and before moved to reinstate the
filing his motion to case.16
reinstate;13
he never failed to Mr. Gobert similarly
return Ms. Randle’s testified that Mr.
calls, allow her an Washington was often
appointment, or unreachable,17 that Mr.
provide her copies of Washington failed to
case materials; and inform him of the case’s
14
dismissal,18 and that
he informed both Mr. Washington failed
Mr. Gobert and Ms. to inform him of the
Randle about the case’s trial setting.19
case’s trial setting in
person.15
12 (1 CR 141).
13 (4 RR 106:10-:13).
14 (4 RR 132:10-:23).
15 (4 RR 50:7-:14).
16 (3 RR 44:11-:21).
17 3 RR 144:24-145:14; 156:11-157:10).
18 (147:7-:13, 150:8-:12).
19 (4 RR 147:14-:16).
11
Allegation Mr. Washington’s Commission’s
Evidence Evidence
Mr. Washington failed Mr. Washington Ms. Randle said that
to promptly comply testified that he Mr. Washington gave
with reasonable provided Ms. Randle her a copy of the file at
requests for with a copy of the file one time, but that she
information and to whether she asked for it
20 did not receive any
surrender documents21 or not.22 documents after 2008.23
Mr. Gobert said that he
requested a copy of the
file from Mr.
Washington, but did
not receive one.24
As this chart and Mr. Washington’s principal brief demonstrate, Mr.
Washington’s testimony and evidence on each of the above issues directly
and sharply conflicted with the Commission’s. Nonetheless, in its
Appellee’s brief, the Commission hardly addresses the contested evidence
on the majority of the allegations against Mr. Washington.
Instead, the Commission argues that the character evidence which
Mr. Washington concededly could have admitted under Rule 404(a)(1)(B)
20 (1 CR 142).
21 (1 CR 143).
22 (4 RR 131:16–134:11).
23 (3 RR 30:9-:25).
24 (4 RR 162:7:-:24).
12
was inadmissible under Rule 608(a).25 According to the Commission, even
though it expressly accused Mr. Washington of “dishonesty, deceit, [and]
misrepresentation,”26 and even though Mr. Washington’s credibility was
the central focus of the case, Mr. Washington could not introduce character
evidence to rebut the Commission’s attack.
As discussed below, this argument is wrong as a matter of law. But
more to the point, the Commission’s attempt to cabin the admissibility of
Mr. Washington’s character evidence to a single charge relies upon a razor-
thin distinction between an “attack” on credibility under Rule 608(a) and
an “accus[ation] involving moral turpitude” under Rule 408(a)(1)(A).
No such distinction can colorably be said to exist in this case. The
Commission accused Mr. Washington of “conduct involving dishonesty,
deceit, [and] misrepresentation” (1 CR 144). Mr. Washington’s initial brief
pointed out the myriad ways in which the Commission pressed this
accusation through its argument, evidence, and examination of Mr.
Washington (Washington Br. at 22–23; 25–26). Indeed, the Commission had
25The Commission also argues that Mr. Washington failed to preserve the admissibility
of the evidence under Rule 608(a) for this Court’s review. As discussed below, this is
not the case.
26 (1 CR 144).
13
to attack Mr. Washington’s credibility to prove its case. Question Number 4
to the jury asked whether Mr. Washington “engage[d] in conduct involving
dishonesty, deceit, or misrepresentation” (1 CR 144).
Expecting a juror to so compartmentalize the evidence that the
Commission all but concedes was admissible asks too much. No juror
could possibly be expected to consider evidence of Mr. Washington’s
honesty only when determining whether he lied to his clients while
simultaneously ignoring this evidence when determining whether Mr.
Washington was telling the truth on the stand. And more to the point, no
juror would understand the substantive accusations that Mr. Washington
lied to his client to be anything other than an attack on Mr. Washington’s
credibility. See Michael v. State, 235 S.W.3d 723, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007)
(stating that test to determine “attack” under Rule 608(a) is “whether a
reasonable juror would believe that a witness’s character for truthfulness
has been attacked by cross-examination, evidence from other witnesses, or
statements of counsel”).
****
In short, the erroneous exclusion of Mr. Washington’s character
evidence infected the entire trial. Parsing the evidence as the Commission
14
requests disregards both the Rule 608(a) “attack-on-credibility” test and
any common sense understanding of how the jury would have interpreted
the evidence.
Under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(b), this Court can only
reverse in part when it can do so “without unfairness to the parties.” Given
the practical impossibility of separating Mr. Washington’s character for
truthfulness with respect to the substantive charges from his character for
truthfulness as a witness, compartmentalizing the issues as the
Commission urges would be unworkable in practice.
The Commission’s specific arguments regarding exclusion of the
character evidence are addressed below.
II. MR. WASHINGTON DIRECTLY REFUTED MR. GOBERT AND MS. RANDLE’S
VERSION OF EVENTS—TO THE EXTENT THE TRIAL COURT’S LIMITS ON HIS
TESTIMONY PERMITTED.
The Commission first argues that the exclusion of Mr. Washington’s
character evidence was harmless because Mr. Washington offered the
equivalent of “no evidence” that he did not explicitly lie to his clients
regarding the status of the case (Comm’n Br. at 24).
15
But Mr. Washington did dispute Mr. Gobert and Ms. Randle’s version
of events. In fact, Mr. Washington directly testified that he informed Ms.
Randle of the case’s dismissal shortly after it occurred:
Q. Your office learned that the case had been dismissed on
October 14th?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And what was your response?
A. My legal response?
Q. Yes, sir. What was your—as an attorney, what did you do
next?
A. I notified Ms. Randle, I think was her name still at the
time. And I took what action I thought I could to rectify
the situation. I filed a motion to reinstate the case on the
docket.
(3 RR 106:5-:15) (emphasis added).
It’s unclear how much more direct the Commission believes Mr.
Washington needed to be in order to rebut Mr. Gobert’s and Ms. Randle’s
allegations. Gobert and Randle said that Mr. Washington never informed
them of the dismissal until they discovered it independently years later.
Mr. Washington said that the first thing he did after the dismissal was
inform Ms. Randle.
16
The Commission never asked Mr. Washington whether he lied to his
clients about the case. Nonetheless, the Commission makes much of Mr.
Washington’s “evasive” answer to his own counsel’s question regarding
whether Mr. Washington told Ms. Randle that there “were no problems
with the case, everything was going smoothly, even though the case had
been dismissed and [Mr. Washington had] appealed it” (see Comm’n Br. at
22).
Contrary to the Commission’s argument, in the context of the
examination, Mr. Washington’s answer— that “[f]rom day one,” he “told
[Ms. Randle] what the problems were” (4 RR 133:6-:12)—could not have
been more direct. Mr. Washington’s trial counsel spent much of the
examination addressing the folly—both legal and factual—of the
Commission’s argument that Mr. Washington’s handling of conflicting trial
settings violated ethical rules. Though the Commission scarcely addresses
these issues in its appellate brief, they were hotly contested in the trial
court (see Washington Br. at 7-11; 28-30).
By the time Mr. Washington reached the deception allegation—an
accusation that, as discussed above, he’d already expressly denied—the
Court informed Mr. Washington’s counsel that he had only two minutes
17
remaining (4 RR 131:17). As a result of this limited time, counsel and Mr.
Washington addressed the allegations of failure to inform and deception in
a summary fashion:
Q. Did you ever not return phone calls of [Ms. Randle’s]?
A. No.
Q. Ever ignore her or refuse to make an appointment?
A. No, never refused to see her when she came by without
an appointment.
Q. Did you ever not provide her with a copy of the file if she
asked for one?
A. No. Whether she asked for it or not, I kept her informed—
I kept her informed of what was going on because the
case was important to me because I can imagine what it’s
like to lose a child. . . .
Q. Did you ever tell her that the—there were no problems
with the case, everything was going smoothly, even
though the case had been dismissed and you appealed it?
A. There were problems with this case from the beginning.
From day one there were—and I told her what the
problems were.
Q. In fact, you would receive calls from not just Ms. Carter
and Mr. Gobert and Mr. Black and the attorneys but from
the entire greater family would call regularly to find out,
when are we going to get our money?
18
A. Everybody was looking for money. And some of them
didn’t have an interest, wasn’t going to get a dime
anyway, but they would still call. And I would talk to
them because I’m trying to keep the peace.
....
THE COURT: Your time is up.
(4 RR 132:10-134:12).
While covering significant ground quickly, this testimony
nonetheless made clear that Mr. Washington informed his clients of the
case’s dismissal, along with the other issues in the case. This testimony was
not “evasive.” It was summary—a necessary tactic given the court-imposed
time constraints, and a reasonable one, given that Mr. Washington had
already expressly refuted the allegations of deceit and failure to inform.
The plain meaning and purpose of this testimony was to expressly
deny the Commission’s allegations of deceit. The jury certainly would have
understood the “problems” to which Mr. Washington referred in his
answer to be those expressly referenced by counsel in the question, i.e., that
“the case had been dismissed and [Mr. Washington] appealed it” (4 RR
133:6-:9). Indeed the question expressly referenced the very allegation of
deceit on which the Commission relies on appeal, i.e., that Mr. Washington
19
told Mr. Gobert and Ms. Randle that “there were no problems with the case
[and] everything was going smoothly [following the dismissal]” (4 RR
133:6-:9).
To lift this quote from the context of the entire trial and say that it
does not amount to a denial of the Commission’s allegations of deceit
blinks at reality. The entire purpose of the question and answer was to
comprehensively and forcefully deny these very allegations. Mr.
Washington’s statement amounts to such a denial on its face and no juror
could have construed the statement as anything other than a denial of the
allegations referenced in the question.
In this way, far from offering “no evidence,” Mr. Washington directly
refuted the Commission’s allegations of deceit. Thus, as Mr. Washington
has repeatedly argued, the case was a credibility contest, and Mr.
Washington’s inability to introduce evidence of his truthful character was
profoundly harmful.
III. THERE WAS NOTHING PARTICULARLY “COMPELLING” ABOUT MR.
GOBERT AND MS. RANDLE’S TESTIMONY THAT WOULD HAVE RENDERED
EVIDENCE OF MR. WASHINGTON’S CHARACTER INCONSEQUENTIAL.
The Commission also suggests that any character evidence could not
have swayed the jury’s vote because Mr. Gobert and Ms. Randle’s
20
testimony was somehow particularly compelling (Comm’s Br. at 17-23).
This argument ignores the presiding juror’s testimony that she and other
jurors questioned whether Mr. Gobert had perjured himself (7 RR 146:8-
:25).
That the jury split on whom to believe without Mr. Washington
introducing any character evidence demonstrates that the introduction of
such evidence would have shifted the jury’s verdict. Indeed, had Mr.
Washington been able to present himself as the legal luminary that he is
instead of the “old and cocky or arrogant” practitioner as misportrayed by
erroneously admitted suspension evidence and Gobert and Randle’s
testimony, the jury likely would have changed its verdict (7 RR 139:8-:14).
In any event, given juror testimony that Mr. Gobert was barely
believed, the Commission’s argument that his testimony and that of Ms.
Randle could not have been overcome with support from character witness
should be rejected.
21
IV. THE RECORD, VIEWED AS A WHOLE, ESTABLISHES THAT MR.
WASHINGTON WOULD HAVE INTRODUCED COMPELLING AND
OVERWHELMING CHARACTER EVIDENCE IF PERMITTED TO DO SO .
The Commission also attempts to diminish the magnitude of Mr.
Washington’s character evidence by focusing upon the one witness that
Mr. Washington presented to make his bill of exception in the trial court.
In doing so, the Commission largely ignores its stipulation that, if
permitted, Mr. Washington “[would have] call[ed] a series
of . . . individuals [who] would [have] provide[d] substantially similar
testimony about Mr. Washington’s character and reputation for truth and
his veracity, honesty and plain dealing” (see 4 RR 228:14-:24). This Court
must—at the least—take this stipulation at face value and conclude that
Mr. Washington would have called a number of other individuals who
would have similarly bolstered his credibility.
In considering who these individuals might have been, what they
might have said, and whether their exclusion was harmless error, this
Court must review “the entire record to determine whether the [erroneous
exclusion of character evidence] probably caused the rendition of an
improper judgment.” Thota v. Young, 366 S.W.3d 678, 693 (Tex. 2012);
22
This record includes a voluminous amount of good character
evidence that Mr. Washington introduced in the sentencing phase. Mr.
Washington’s principal brief cited and discussed that evidence at length.
The Commission’s contention that this evidence is irrelevant to the
harmless error analysis requires that this Court turn a blind eye to the
record evidence and ignores both the parties’ stipulation and the broad
scope of harmless error review that the Texas Supreme Court proscribes.
As a practical matter, requiring Mr. Washington to call every individual
character witness in support of his bill of exception would have defeated
the purpose of the summary stipulation to which the parties agreed. The
record contains evidence of precisely the nature and scope of the good
character testimony that Mr. Washington would have presented.
Consistent with this Court’s obligation to review the entire record when
assessing harm, the Court should not disregard this compelling evidence.
See Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. v. Sevcik, 267 S.W.3d 867, 871 (Tex. 2008)
(when analyzing harmless error, “[a] reviewing court must evaluate the
whole case from voir dire to closing argument, considering the state of the
evidence, the strength and weakness of the case, and the verdict.”).
23
V. EVIDENCE OF MR. WASHINGTON’S EXCELLENT REPUTATION WAS ALSO
ADMISSIBLE TO SUPPORT HIS CREDIBILITY AS A WITNESS.
While essentially conceding that the trial court erroneously excluded
Mr. Washington’s character evidence under Rule 404(a)(1)(B), the
Commission devotes significant briefing to arguments that either (1) the
trial court properly excluded the evidence under Rule 608(a) or (2) Mr.
Washington failed to preserve error regarding this basis for admission of
the evidence.
In focusing on the admissibility of the evidence under Rule 608(a),
the Commission attempts to cabin the trial court’s error by arguing that
any good character evidence was admissible solely to determine Mr.
Washington’s substantive liability for deceit (Rule 404(a)(1)(B)), rather that
his credibility generally (Rule 608(a)).
This Court should reject the Commission’s invitation to so confine its
harm analysis. The evidence that Mr. Washington sought to introduce was
relevant and admissible as to his character for truthfulness generally. There
is no indication that, had the trial court admitted the evidence, the
Commission would have sought to limit its use. In addition, the evidence is
24
plainly admissible to determine Mr. Washington’s credibility as a witness
under Rule 608(a) and Mr. Washington preserved its admission on this
basis.
A. It would be inappropriate to assume that evidence of Mr.
Washington’s truthful character would not have altered the
verdict as to the other charges against Mr. Washington.
The Commission appears to argue that, even if character evidence
was admissible on the charge of deceit, it was not admissible—and
therefore could not provide a basis for reversal—with regard to the other
charges against Mr. Washington.
This attempt to limit an error that broadly undermined Mr.
Washington’s credibility to a single charge relies upon several implausible
assumptions, none of which the record the record supports:
1. It assumes that if the trial court had admitted the evidence
under Rule 404(a)(1)(B), the Commission would have requested
a limiting instruction that the evidence not be considered for
evaluating Mr. Washington’s honesty generally.
2. It assumes that, in response to this request, Mr. Washington
would not have clarified his statement that evidence of truthful
character was admissible across all allegations to rehabilitate
Mr. Washington as a witness.
3. It assumes that the trial court would have concluded
(incorrectly) that the evidence was admissible under Rule
404(a)(1)(B), but was not admissible under Rule 608(a).
25
4. It assumes that the trial court would have issued an instruction
that the jury was to consider Mr. Washington’s character only
for the purpose of determining whether Mr. Washington lied to
his clients, not for the purpose of determining whether Mr.
Washington’s was lying during testimony to the jury.
5. Finally, and perhaps most implausible of all, it assumes that the
jurors could engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to
compartmentalize this information in compliance with such an
instruction.
Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(b), allows this Court to isolate
harm, but only when it can do so “without unfairness to the parties.”
Cabining the erroneous exclusion of character evidence only to the charge
of deceit requires profoundly unfair speculation about how the parties
would have responded had the trial court admitted the character evidence
that the Commission now concedes was admissible.
The erroneous exclusion of Mr. Washington’s character evidence is
“baked in the cake.” The evidence was directly relevant to Mr.
Washington’s credibility, Mr. Washington sought to admit it for all
purposes, and the only reasonable conclusion is that the jury would have
considered it for all purposes.
As a result, in analyzing whether introduction of Mr. Washington’s
character evidence would have changed the jury’s verdict, this Court
26
should examine the conflicting evidence as to all of the charges against Mr.
Washington and reject the Commission’s speculative attempt to narrowly
limit the error’s consequences.
B. The Commission directly attacked Mr. Washington’s
credibility, which permitted him to introduce evidence of his
good character under Rule 608(a).
In addition, Mr. Washington expressly sought to introduce the
character evidence to rehabilitate the Commission’s attacks on his
character, and the trial court erred in refusing this request. The test for
admission of character evidence under Rule 608(a) “is whether a
reasonable juror would believe that a witness’s character for truthfulness
has been attacked by cross-examination, evidence from other witnesses, or
statements of counsel (e.g., during voir dire or opening statements).”
Michael v. State, 235 S.W.3d 723, 728 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
A reasonable juror could not construe the following statements (all of
which come from the Commission’s jury arguments) to be anything other
than what they were—direct attacks on Mr. Washington’s credibility:
“[O]ur allegation is that Mr. Washington . . . was dishonest
with [his] clients” (3 RR 7:20-:23);
27
“[Mr. Washington] misrepresented facts to [his clients], and he
deceived them into believing something that wasn’t--that
wasn’t what it was” (3 RR 7:20-8:1);
“[T]hroughout all of it, [Mr. Washington] was dishonest,
deceitful, and misrepresented everything about the status of
this case” (3 RR 13:1-:5);
“[Mr. Gobert and Ms. Randle] were especially hurt by Mr.
Washington’s dishonesty and deceit, and the fact that he had
misrepresented the status of the case to them . . .” (3 RR
12:9-:14);
“He lied to you [(in a hypothetical scenario that called upon
jurors to place themselves in the shoes of Gobert and Randle)]”
(5 RR 10:25).
In particular, the statement that “[Mr. Gobert and Ms. Randle] were
especially hurt by Mr. Washington’s dishonesty and deceit” goes beyond
merely pointing to an isolated incident. The implication of the
Commission’s use of the possessive “Mr. Washington’s” is that dishonesty
and deceit are qualities belonging to or characterizing Mr. Washington.
In other words, the Commission did not refer simply to a single
statement that Mr. Washington made, but to traits, i.e., dishonesty and
deceit, that it contended he possessed. This is exactly the type of “attack”
on Mr. Washington’s character for truthfulness that permitted him to
introduce character evidence under Rule 608(a).
28
Indeed, if an entire trial accusing a testifying witness of “conduct
involving dishonesty, deceit, [and] misrepresentation” cannot be
characterized as an “attack” on the witness’s truthfulness, one struggles to
imagine what could be. And in addition to this substantive charge, the
Commission’s trial tactics certainly placed Mr. Washington’s character at
issue. Mr. Washington thoroughly discussed these attacks in his principal
brief at pages 22-26.
Mr. Washington’s counsel requested to introduce evidence of Mr.
Washington’s character to rehabilitate Mr. Washington’s credibility as a
witness. Rule 608(a) permitted Mr. Washington to introduce character
evidence for this purpose. As a result, this Court should not limit its harm
analysis of the exclusion of character evidence solely to the charge of
deceit, but should consider the broader impact of the exclusion on the
jury’s assessment of Mr. Washington’s credibility.
C. Mr. Washington’s counsel preserved rehabilitation of Mr.
Washington as a witness as a basis for admitting character
evidence.
As this Court has observed in other contexts, “a party need not recite
‘magic words’ or cite specific statutes to preserve a complaint for appeal.”
Wooten v. State, No. 03-11-00667-CR, 2013 WL 1831571, at *4 (Tex. App.—
29
Austin Apr. 24, 2013, pet. ref’d)); see also Barina v. Barina, No. 03-08-00341-
CV, 2008 WL 4951224, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 21, 2008, no pet.)
(“[T]he rules of appellate procedure do not require the use of magic words
to preserve error.”). To the contrary, to preserve error a party need only
“state[ ] the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party
sought . . . with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the
complaint.” Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.
Here, after Mr. Washington raised the admissibility of character
evidence under Texas Rule of Evidence 404(a)(1)(B), the Commission
responded by attempting to distinguish Mr. Washington’s cited authority.
At that point, Mr. Washington offered an alternative basis for admission of
the evidence, saying:
I think the Bar opened the door to [evidence of Mr.
Washington’s truthful character] by attempting to impeach Mr.
Washington that he was lying and he was making claims and
allegations referencing that set of facts.
(4 RR 216:22-:25) (emphasis added).
This alternative basis explicitly focused on the credibility attacks that
Mr. Washington endured on the stand, not the substantive allegations
against him. By saying that the Commission’s impeachment opened the door
30
to character evidence, his counsel plainly presented to the Court an
alternative basis for character evidence that differed from that asserted
under Rule 404(a)(1)(B).
This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the Court had
already sustained the Commission’s objection to admission of the evidence
under Rule 404(a)(1)(B) when Mr. Washington’s counsel pressed for
admission of the evidence on the alternative ground of Mr. Washington’s
impeachment. Specifically, after the Commission argued that Mr.
Washington’s cited authorities were not “applicable to the case-in-chief of
this case at all since we’re not dealing with anything involving moral
turpitude,” the Court responded “Right.” (4 RR 216:3-:8). After the
Commission then further explained its position, Mr. Washington’s counsel
offered the alternative basis that the Commission had opened the door
through “impeach[ment] of Mr. Washington that he was lying and he was
making claims and allegations referencing that set of facts.” (4 RR 216:22-
:25).
Though the Commission appears to contend that this statement
merely further asserted an argument for introduction of the evidence under
404(a)(1)(b), seeking to introduce good character evidence based upon
31
impeachment is an invocation of Rule 608(a). Rule 608(a) provides for the
admission of good character evidence whenever the witness’s credibility
has been “attacked.” See Tex. R. Evid. 608(a) (“[E]vidence of truthful
character is admissible only after the witness’s character for truthfulness
has been attacked.”).
But acts like impeachment, cross-examination, and insinuations that a
witness is “lying” and “making claims and allegations” provide no basis
whatsoever to admit character evidence under Rule 404(a)(1)(B). Indeed,
Rule 404(a)(1)(B) applies only when “a party [in a civil case is] accused of
conduct involving moral turpitude” (emphasis added). The Commission’s
impeachment of Mr. Washington on the stand and insinuation that he was
falsely testifying could never alter the underlying conduct of which the
Commission accused him.
Thus, prior impeachment cannot be characterized as an argument for
admitting evidence under Rule 404(a)(1)(B). Indeed, if Mr. Washington’s
trial counsel had never mentioned Rule 404(a)(1)(B), but had simply said—
as he did following the Rule 404(a)(1)(B) discussion—“the Bar opened the
door to [good character for truthfulness evidence] by attempting to
impeach Mr. Washington that he was lying and he was making claims and
32
allegations referencing that set of facts” (4 RR 216:22-25), no one could
colorably argue that this statement raised Rule 404(a)(1)(B). Everyone
would agree that this statement referred—as it did in this case—to
rehabilitation under Rule 608(a).
Counsel’s impeachment statement has nothing whatsoever to do
with the substantive allegations against Mr. Washington that opened the
door under 404(a)(1)(B). Instead, it focuses exclusively on the attack that his
credibility sustained over the course of his examination. In making this
statement, Mr. Washington thus identified a fact that rendered character
evidence admissible under Rule 608(a), but was completely irrelevant to
the analysis under 404(a)(1)(B).
It also bears note that the testimony Mr. Washington sought to
introduce—“testimony about Mr. Washington’s character and reputation
for truth and veracity, honesty and plain dealing” (see 4 RR 228:14-:24)—
was admissible both under Rule 404(a)(1)(B) and under Rule 608(a).
Character for truthfulness not only directly addressed the Commission’s
moral turpitude allegations, but also served to bolster Mr. Washington’s
credibility as a witness. The evidence was thus cross-admissible for both
33
purposes, further evidencing that counsel’s statement raised both bases for
admission.
Mr. Washington’s interpretation of his counsel’s statement thus
renders the statement a sensible, timely, and relevant objection. The
Commission’s, by contrast, renders it an irrelevant sidebar. This Court’s
obligation to liberally construe objections to avoid waiver supports Mr.
Washington’s interpretation that the statement preserved Rule 608(a)’s
invocation. See Arkoma Basin Exploration Co., Inc. v. FMF Associates 1990-A,
Ltd., 249 S.W.3d 380, 388 (Tex. 2008) (“Like all other procedural rules, those
regarding the specificity of post-trial objections should be construed
liberally so that the right to appeal is not lost unnecessarily.”).
For all of these reasons, counsel’s statement cannot be understood as
further argument that the trial court should admit the evidence under Rule
404(a)(1)(B)—an argument that the trial court had already rejected. Instead,
the statement must be understood as what it was, an invocation of the
alternative justification for admitting character evidence. The Commission
had attacked Mr. Washington’s character for truthfulness, opening the
door under Rule 608(a). Mr. Washington’s counsel “stated the grounds for
[admitting character evidence under Rule 608] . . . with sufficient specificity
34
to make the trial court aware of the complaint.” See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.
Mr. Washington preserved this basis for admitting the evidence, and the
trial court erred in excluding the use of the evidence for this purpose. This
Court should therefore consider the harm of excluding the evidence that
resulted from the jury’s misimpression about Mr. Washington’s character
for truthfulness as well as in the context of the specific allegation of deceit.
VI. MR. WASHINGTON STANDS ON HIS PRIOR BRIEFING WITH REGARD TO
HIS REMAINING ARGUMENTS.
In response to the Commission’s other arguments, and without
waiving any points raised in his initial brief, Mr. Washington stands on his
initial briefing.
Prayer
Craig A. Washington asks this Court to reverse the trial court’s
judgment and grant him a new trial along with any other relief to which he
has shown himself entitled.
35
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael A. Stafford
Michael A. Stafford Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
Texas Bar No. 18996970 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000
mstafford@gardere.com Houston, Texas 77002
Katharine D. David Tel: 713.276.5500
Texas Bar No. 24045749 Fax: 713.276.5555
kdavid@gardere.com
Stacy R. Obenhaus COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT
Texas Bar No. 15161570 CRAIG A. WASHINGTON
sobenhaus@gardere.com
John MacVane
Texas Bar No. 24085444
jmacvane@gardere.com
36
Certificate of Service
I certify that this document was served on the following counsel on
November 19, 2015, through this court’s electronic filing/service system:
Cynthia Canfield Hamilton
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
State Bar of Texas
Post Office Box 12487
Austin, Texas 78711
chamilton@texasbar.com
/s/ John MacVane
John MacVane
Certificate of Compliance
I certify that this document contains 5,509 words, apart from those
parts of the brief excluded by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1). I
relied on the computer program used to prepare the document to
determine the number of words.
/s/ John MacVane
John MacVane
37
Gardere01 - 7261905v.5