Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04105/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04105-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Manuel Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4105

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

Manuel Williams, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED]

Manny, * 

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2007

Filed: October 3, 2007

___________

Before BYE, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted Manuel Williams of one count of conspiring to distribute

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and

two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). Williams appeals his convictions contending

the district court1

 abused its discretion in limiting his right to cross examine Levi

Appellate Case: 06-4105 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2007 Entry ID: 3358317
-2-

Garcia, a prosecution witness, concerning Garcia's failure to appear for court dates.

We affirm.

Garcia was one of several cooperating witnesses who testified regarding

Williams's involvement in the conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. After

defense counsel was allowed to cross examine Garcia extensively regarding the effects

his addiction to methamphetamine had on his memory, the district court upheld the

prosecutor's objection when defense counsel asked a question concerning specific

instances when Garcia failed to appear in court. On appeal, Williams contends the

question was probative of Garcia's truthfulness or untruthfulness and should have been

permitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b). We disagree that a failure to appear

for a court date is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. Even assuming such to

be the case, however, the district court still had the discretion to disallow the question,

see Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) ("Specific instances of the conduct of a witness . . . may . .

. in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be

inquired into on cross-examination"), and we conclude the district court did not abuse

its discretion in sustaining the objection. See Delaware v. Van Arsdell, 475 U.S. 673,

679 (1986) ("[T]rial judges retain wide latitude . . . to impose reasonable limits on

such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment,

prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive

or only marginally relevant."). Moreover, Williams has failed to show how he was

prejudiced given the other evidence in the case against him. See United States v.

Love, 329 F.3d 981, 984 (8th Cir. 2003) ("A trial court's decision to limit crossexamination will not be reversed unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion and

a showing of prejudice to the defendant.").

We affirm the judgment of conviction.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4105 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2007 Entry ID: 3358317