IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CASE NO.: 2:06-CR-00202-WKW

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER )

EUGENE CLECKLER’S RESPONSE TO MOTION IN LIMINE

COMES NOW Eugene L. Cleckler, and hereby responds to the

government’s motion in limine to limit the defendant’s cross-examination of its

witnesses. The government’s motion is due to be denied based on the following: 

1. The government moves the court to limit cross-examination regarding the

polygraph discussions between counsel. The defendant does not intend to

reference the subject of polygraph at all.

2. The government moves the court to limit cross-examination of its witnesses

“regarding conduct unrelated to the events in question.” The defendant intends to

cross examine the government’s witnesses concerning the issues directly related to

the events in question. 

Cross-examination may be used to break down the testimony of the direct

examination, to affect the credibility of the witness, or to show bias or motive to

lie. Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 (1988). Restrictions on the defendant’s right

to cross-examine, may be violative of his Sixth Amendment right to confront the

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 75 Filed 01/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
witnesses against him. U.S. v. Croucher, 532 F.2d 1042, 1044 (5 Cir. 1976). It

th

has been held reversible error to deny wide latitude in cross-examination when the

testimony of an accomplice is involved. U.S. v. Wolfson, 437 F.2d 862, 874 (2nd

Cir. 1970). 

The government recognizes in its limine motion that Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) also

provides proper cross-examination of a witness, “if probative for truthfulness or

untruthfulness.” The defendant intends to challenge the credibility and bias of

each government witness but does not intend, at this time, to question the

witnesses about extrinsic bad acts unless those matters become relevant at trial. If

and when those matters become relevant, whatever they may be, the defendant

should be allowed cross-examine the respective witness on those subjects. 

The defendant therefore requests the Court to deny the government’s pretrial

motion in limine and to consider the defendant’s latitude of cross-examination on

the basis of the government’s direct testimony at trial. 

Respectfully submitted, this the 5 day of January, 2007. th

s/ Ronald R. Brunson 

RONALD R. BRUNSON 1696

ATTORNEY FOR EUGENE L. CLECKLER

2126 Morris Avenue

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 252-2100

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 75 Filed 01/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 5th, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send

notification of such filing to the following:

Andrew O. Schiff, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney

201 One Court Square

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197

Andrew.schiff@usdoj.gov, Debbie.shaw@usdoj.gov

George L. Beck, Jr., Esq.

Terrie S. Biggs, Esq.

CAPELL & HOWARD, P.C.

150 South Perry Street

Post Office Box 2069

Montgomery, Alabama 36102-2069

glb@chlaw.com tsb@chlaw.com 

s/ Ronald R. Brunson 

 RONALD R. BRUNSON

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 75 Filed 01/05/2007 Page 3 of 3