Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03098/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03098-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Miguel Rosas Santoyo
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, Chief Judge, United States District

Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3098

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Jose Miguel Rosas Santoyo, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 16, 2006

Filed: May 23, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges, and ROSENBAUM,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jose Miguel Rosas Santoyo was charged with knowingly and intentionally

possessing with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of methamphetamine and

some amount of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of marijuana

in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(viii), and (b)(1)(D). The

government filed a pre-trial motion in limine, seeking to exclude evidence that its

confidential informant had exhibited deceptive responses on a polygraph test

Appellate Case: 05-3098 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Entry ID: 2047738
2

The Honorable Howard F. Sachs, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

concerning a defendant in another case. The district court2

 granted this motion,

concluding that the results of the polygraph were of a collateral nature, that the

evidence as to the informant’s credibility would be cumulative, and that the evidence

would distract the jury. We affirm.

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to exclude

evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. United States v. Jordan, 150 F.3d 895,

899 (8th Cir. 1998). Rule 403 provides that “evidence may be excluded if its

probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,

confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay,

waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” We give great

deference to the district court’s judgment in making this determination. See United

States v. Ruiz-Estrada, 312 F.3d 398, 403 (8th Cir. 2002).

In United States v. Waters, the district court excluded evidence that the

defendant passed a polygraph test under Rule 403. 194 F.3d 926, 929 (8th Cir. 1999).

We affirmed, explaining that in United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998),

the Supreme Court noted the legitimate risk that juries will give

excessive weight to the opinions of a polygrapher, clothed as they are in

scientific expertise. The Court also noted that litigation over the

admissibility of polygraph evidence is by its very nature collateral,

thereby prolonging criminal trials and threatening to distract the jury

from its central function of determining guilt or innocence.

Waters, 194 F.3d at 930 (internal quotations omitted). These same concerns of

collateral evidence and distracting the jury are present in this case. Further, Scott had

the opportunity to inquire about the informant’s credibility on cross-examination.

Appellate Case: 05-3098 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Entry ID: 2047738
-3-

Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the

government’s motion in limine.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3098 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/23/2006 Entry ID: 2047738