The D.C. Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for a man convicted in an incident in which that man and a D.C. police officer was shot. The panel ruled that the trial judge in 2009 improperly limited a defense attorney’s cross-examination of the officer who had been shot, pursuing the concept of collusion among the three officers who were on the scene.
Ronald Coles was convicted on charges including aggravated assault while armed, resisting a police officer and several offenses relating to illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. However, the appeals court overturned all the convictions except the one for failing to appear on his original trial date and remanded the case for further proceedings.
On April 3, 2007, three D.C. police officers saw Coles and another man who were holding Styrofoam cups and suspected the cups might contain alcohol, according to the appeals court decision.
Coles ran away, and Officer Arthur Hopper noticed that Coles was holding his hand around his midsection, like he had a gun in his waistband, the appeals court decision stated. As officers attempted to arrest Coles, a struggle ensued, and Coles and Hopper were shot and injured — reportedly from a single bullet that went through Hopper’s calf before lodging itself in Coles’ thigh.
During the trial, the prosecution aimed to prove that Hooper fired a .22-caliber pistol during the struggle and injured himself and the officer, according to the opinion issued Thursday.
But the defense argued that one of the police officers had shot Coles and the three officers later colluded to cover up the shooting.
The trial court prevented Coles’ lawyers from pursuing cross-examination about whether Hopper had copied portions of his report from another officer. A footnote in the opinion stated that more than one-third of the sentences in Hopper’s narrative were identical to those in the other officer’s narrative.
However, the appeals court ruled that this line of questioning should have been allowed because it was the only concrete fact indicating that the officers might have colluded. The decision also said that this excluded evidence, when added to other evidence, might have caused jurors to have reasonable doubt about Coles’ guilt.
“The defense should have been permitted, at a minimum, to inquire about the order in which the reports were submitted, the striking similarities between the two reports, and Officer Hopper’s reason for apparently copying the report,” the opinion said.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. is reviewing the decision and had no further comment, spokesman Bill Miller said. D.C. police spokeswoman Gwendolyn Crump declined to comment.
