Daryl Dotson was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole by the Criminal District Court 2 of Dallas County, Texas. On appeal, he raised several issues: 1) the trial court's prohibition on his counsel's inquiry about a witness's pending criminal charge, 2) the denial of a motion for mistrial due to a violation of attorney-client privilege, and 3) the court reporter being instructed to go off the record before dismissing the original venire panel. The appellate court affirmed the conviction.
The case involved Dotson, Nate Scott, and an associate, Debanair Wynn, who conspired to rob and kill drug dealer Steven Govan. They lured Govan and Jonathan Williams to a trap house, where Scott shot them, and Dotson subsequently killed them with an assault rifle. The bodies were disposed of in Govan’s car, which was later set on fire.
The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision regarding witness Clater, who had observed the shootings. Clater was awaiting trial for a burglary charge, which he disclosed without objection. The court's ruling on evidence admissibility was assessed for abuse of discretion, ultimately leading to the affirmation of Dotson's conviction.
A colloquy took place during the trial regarding Clater's credibility and his motivations for testifying, specifically in relation to his lack of statements in a Rockwall County case. Defense counsel attempted to question Clater about whether he had communicated with anyone regarding the case, but the prosecutor objected on grounds of relevance, and the court sustained the objection multiple times. Dotson argued that this was an error, as understanding Clater’s motivations was pertinent to assessing his credibility, which is a crucial aspect of cross-examination.
The document cites Texas Rules of Evidence, indicating that evidence is relevant if it could make a fact more or less probable and is consequential to the case. It is noted that when challenging the exclusion of evidence, a party must typically make an offer of proof unless the substance is clear from the context. In this instance, the defense did not sufficiently elaborate on why Clater's responses were admissible, and even if the issue was preserved for appeal, Dotson failed to demonstrate that the exclusion of the evidence was reversible error.
Dotson claimed that Clater's prosecution by the same party could indicate a motive to testify favorably for the State. However, since the jury was already informed of Clater’s pending burglary charge during the State’s case-in-chief, the court found that Dotson did not prove the necessary nexus between Clater's testimony and potential bias that would warrant the admission of the excluded evidence.
Dotson argued that Clater's testimony at trial contradicted a statement he allegedly made to police regarding the Rockwall County case. However, Clater had consistently testified, without objection, that he did not provide any statement related to that case. Therefore, any error in excluding further evidence of Clater's ongoing prosecution was deemed harmless, referencing Leday v. State, which states that an objection's overruling does not warrant reversal if similar evidence was admitted without objection. Consequently, Dotson's first issue was overruled.
In his second issue, Dotson contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial after a microphone was discovered on the courtroom table, which he claimed recorded confidential communications between him and his attorneys, infringing on attorney-client privilege and constituting an incurable error. The law permits a mistrial only in extreme cases involving highly prejudicial errors. The assessment of whether such an error necessitates a mistrial depends on the specifics of the case, with the trial court's decision reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court must consider the evidence favorably to its ruling, and if the ruling lies within the realm of reasonable disagreement, it is upheld.
During a lunch break on the third trial day, defense counsel found a microphone placed by crew members from the documentary series After the First 48. Counsel requested a hearing to address the unauthorized recordings, seeking access to review the material. Initially, the trial court denied this request after a crew member confirmed the recordings had not been shared with anyone. However, a hearing was later granted after the day's testimony concluded.
Thomas Treml, a freelance video production associate, testified at a hearing regarding his role in the production of a show related to Dotson's trial. His responsibilities included obtaining releases from individuals speaking on camera, which he fulfilled for the bailiff, court reporter, judge, and prosecutors, but not for Dotson or his counsel. Treml did not inform Dotson or his counsel that microphones were placed at their table, assuming their awareness due to the environment. He did inform prosecutors about the recording, who requested not to have a microphone at their table. During the trial, two cameras recorded audio, with Treml’s assistant managing the microphone placement and audio monitoring. Treml asserted that the audio files had not been transmitted elsewhere and were stored securely on a hard drive.
Following the hearing, defense counsel sought an order for the production crew to provide all recordings from the trial and moved for a mistrial, citing violations of attorney-client privilege and Dotson's Fifth Amendment rights. Counsel noted that while prosecutors were informed about the recording, defense counsel was not. The prosecutor recommended that the recordings not be used and requested their destruction. Although the trial court denied the mistrial motion, it initially ordered the crew to provide recordings from defense counsel's microphone. This ruling was later retracted after the prosecutor claimed releasing the entire transcript would lead to unfair prejudice, resulting in the court ordering the recordings to be sealed until trial completion.
Defense counsel subsequently subpoenaed all trial recordings, but the trial court granted the production company's motion to quash, returning the recordings to them. Dotson argued that his attorney-client privilege was violated by the production assistant's monitoring of audio and claimed that the trial court erred by allowing recordings related to him and his counsel to be turned over to the production crew. Despite these assertions, the court found that Dotson failed to demonstrate reversible error, assuming that any violation of privilege occurred.
Dotson asserts that violations of attorney-client privilege are severe enough to warrant a mistrial, as they represent incurable errors. However, he fails to provide supporting authority for this claim. The State references United States v. Irwin, where mere government intrusion into the attorney-client relationship does not automatically violate the Sixth Amendment; a violation occurs only if the intrusion significantly prejudices the defendant. Prejudice may arise if evidence gathered from the interference is presented at trial, if confidential defense strategies are exploited, or if the defendant's trust in their attorney is undermined, thus giving the prosecution an unfair advantage.
The court notes that Dotson does not argue a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights regarding the recordings' creation and disclosure, but the principles from Irwin apply to his Fifth Amendment claim and appeal based on Rule of Evidence 503. It is confirmed that the recordings made during trial were not disclosed to the jury or any other party involved, and the prosecution did not benefit from them. The court expresses concern about the After the First 48 crew’s failure to obtain consent from defense counsel for microphone placement, especially since they sought permission from the prosecution but were denied. Nonetheless, recording trial proceedings without the defendant’s consent is not unconstitutional, as established in Chandler v. Florida, and similar rulings affirm that cameras in the courtroom do not constitute error if no prejudice is demonstrated. Since Dotson has not shown any prejudice from the recordings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his mistrial motion. His second issue is thus overruled.
Dotson claims that the trial court erred by dismissing the original jury panel and instructing the court reporter to go off the record without providing an explanation. The first voir dire examination on May 13, 2013, included a request from defense counsel for additional time to discuss specific legal matters, which the court denied. The court then excused the venire panel and concluded the proceedings without documenting the reasons for these actions. A docket entry suggests that the panel was insufficient to continue. Dotson argues that the lack of a record impedes the ability to assess potential reversible errors related to juror dismissals. However, the court found that defense counsel did not object to the dismissal or the off-the-record direction at any point. Furthermore, the second voir dire was conducted properly with a new venire, and the selected jurors were deemed fair and impartial. Therefore, any possible errors from the first panel did not affect the case's outcome, leading to the conclusion that Dotson's appeal was without merit. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.
