Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04023/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04023-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Onterrail Remond Altman
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4023

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Onterrail Remond Altman, also known *

as Onterrail Redmond Altman, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 25, 2007

 Filed: November 5, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

The United States filed this interlocutory appeal from the district court’s order

excluding one of its witnesses, Ronnie Lee Cyrus, Jr., from testifying in the trial of

Onterrail Remond Altman. We hold that the district court abused its discretion in

excluding Cyrus because there was no untimely disclosure and no other adequate

reason for the exclusion. 

Appellate Case: 06-4023 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Entry ID: 3369138
-2-

I. Background

Altman and Cyrus were arrested separately, but as a part of the same overall

investigation. A grand jury indicted Altman on one count of conspiracy to distribute

at least fifty grams of cocaine base (crack) on July 27, 2006. After other counsel had

withdrawn from the case, attorney Keith Rigg entered an appearance on behalf of

Altman on August 7, 2006, to represent Altman at a detention hearing. The hearing

was Rigg’s only substantive involvement with Altman. Three days later, Altman’s

present counsel, James Cook, entered his appearance, at which point Rigg ceased to

be involved in representing Altman. 

At some point subsequent to Rigg’s brief representation of Altman, Rigg

became counsel for Cyrus. Apparently, Rigg discussed with both Altman and Cyrus

the possibility of a conflict of interest arising from this situation, and Rigg either

concluded that there was no conflict or received their permission to represent Cyrus.

Cyrus later decided to cooperate with the government. After apparently proffering

testimony on October 6—the substance of which is unknown—Cyrus proffered

testimony against several persons, including Altman, on October 24. The report

detailing Cyrus’s testimony regarding Altman was not prepared and given to the

Assistant United States Attorney handling Altman’s case until November 20. On

November 30, the government disclosed Cyrus as a potential witness, and the district

court moved the trial date from December 14 to December 5. 

The district court granted Altman’s in limine motion to exclude Cyrus’s

testimony, ruling that the government’s November 30 disclosure was untimely in light

of the government’s month-earlier knowledge of Cyrus’s existence as a potential

witness. Altman also argued that Rigg, cognizant of potential conflict of interest

considerations, would not have become Cyrus’s lawyer unless Cyrus had told Rigg

that he knew nothing incriminating about Altman. Accordingly, the district court

expressed its concern about the unfairness that might result from Altman’s inability,

Appellate Case: 06-4023 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Entry ID: 3369138
-3-

because of Cyrus’s attorney-client privilege, to compel Rigg to testify about Cyrus’s

initial lack of incriminating information. 

II. Discussion

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision regarding the

exclusion of evidence as a sanction for governmental discovery violations. United

States v. Pherigo, 327 F.3d 690, 694 (8th Cir. 2003). If an actual discovery violation

exists, the sanction will be upheld or reversed based on “(1) whether the Government

acted in bad faith and the reason(s) for delay in production; (2) whether there is any

prejudice to the defendant; and (3) whether any lesser sanction is appropriate to secure

future Government compliance.” Id.; see, e.g., United States v. Sandoval-Rodriguez,

452 F.3d 984, 989-90 (8th Cir. 2006) (finding no discovery violation and then

assuming a violation to discuss the three factors). 

The government did not violate any general rule of discovery or any specific

discovery order by the district court. A federal criminal defendant generally has no

right to know about government witnesses prior to trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Fed.

R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2); Sandoval-Rodriguez, 452 F.3d at 990. Due process requires

merely that the government disclose all material or potentially exculpatory evidence

before the trial ends. United States v. Holmes, 421 F.3d 683, 687 (8th Cir. 2005). In

this case, an open-file policy was in place, and Altman was affirmatively provided

with pre-trial notice that Cyrus would be called at trial. If not for a change of trial date

that also occurred on November 30, the defense would have had two weeks to prepare.

As it was, the defense had at least four full days prior to trial to prepare to meet

Cyrus’s testimony, and thus the district court abused its discretion by excluding

Cyrus’s testimony as untimely disclosed. 

The district court additionally excluded Cyrus’s testimony because of the

unfairness to Altman if he could not compel Rigg to testify as an impeaching witness

Appellate Case: 06-4023 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Entry ID: 3369138
-4-

against Cyrus. We can find no authority that justifies such a decision. Cyrus’s

testimony is certainly relevant, see Fed. R. Evid. 402, and Altman has not advanced

any case, rule, statute, or Constitutional provision for the proposition that the inability

to impeach a witness by calling the witness’s lawyer is grounds to exclude that

witness’s testimony. This rationale does not justify exclusion, and the district court

abused its discretion in relying upon it.

We reverse the order of exclusion and remand the case to the district court for

further proceedings. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4023 Page: 4 Date Filed: 11/05/2007 Entry ID: 3369138