2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-23-2003 

# U S A v . P att e rson P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-3293

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . P att e r s on " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 441. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/441* The Hon. Cynthi a Holcomb Hall, Ci rcuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for t

he Ninth Circ uit, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No. 02-3293 UNIT ED STA TES OFAMERI CA,

v. ALVI N PATT ERSON. Appellant ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FOR

THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Crim. No. 01-cr- 00515) Distri ct Court J udge: Hon. Dennis A. Cavanaugh Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

June 17, 2003 Bef ore: ALITO, ROTH, and HALL, * Circuit Judges . (Opinion Fi led: J une 23, 2003 )

OPINI ON OF THE COURT

HA LL , Circuit

Judge :-2-

Alv in Pa tterson appe als his c onv ictions f or m ail frau d and for co nspirin g to unl awfu ll y obt ai n emp lo y ment ben efi ts . We AFFI RM. Patter son assi gns error

to the di stri ct court ’s deni al of hi s request for production of the h and wr itten not es ta ken by a g ove rnm ent a gen t du ring me eting s w ith Z ach ary E pps , a key pr osecuti on witness. According to Pat ters on, the dist

rict court abus ed its discr etion by denying his request

without reviewing the notes in camera to dete rmine if theycontai ned mate rial sub ject to the Jenc ks A ct. Generall y, “report s, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by . . . a government agent

in connection with i nvesti gating or prosec uting t

he case” ar e not dis coverabl e. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)( 2). Once the government has c alle d a witness to tes tify for the prosecuti on, however, the Jencks Act requires the pr oduction of “any s tate ment . . . of thewitness i n the posse ssion of t he United Sta tes w hich relat es to the s ubj ect m atter ” of the w itnes s’s te stim ony. 1 8 U .S.C . § 35 00( b). If a defendant

makes a prima fac ie showing of t he existence of a witnes s statement, t he cour t mus t review the state men t in camera to d eterm ine if it is pr odu cible . United States v. Sm ith , 984 F .2d 10 84, 10 86 (1 0th C ir. 1993 ); see also United States v. Sanchez -Gonzales , 294 F.3d at 563, 568 (3d Cir. 2002) (ci ting Sm ith favorab ly). Patter son argues t

hat he made the requis ite prima facie showing by i ntroduci ng evidence that notes were taken by a government agent during an interview with Epps. Patterson, how ever, fails to note that un der Sm ith and Sanchez-Gonzales , the defendant-3-

bears the burden of making a prima facie show ing that the document at issue contai ns a statement by a witness . By i ntroduci ng evidence t hat a government agent took notes during a meeting wit

h Epps, Patterson di d no more than di rect t he court’ s attention to something that might qu alify as a statement by a non -testifying governm ent agent. Th e district court therefore had no obligation to revi ew the notes in camera in the absence of anyevidence that E pps e ither ap prov ed the notes or som ehow adop ted the m as his pe rsona l statem ent. See 18 U .S.C. § 350 0(e)(1 ) (def ining “ statem ent” a s “a w ritten statem ent m ade b y said witness and signed or

otherwis e adopted or

approved byhim”) . Patter son int roduced no evidence t

hat Epps adopt ed or approved t he agent’ s notes. For thi s reason, the dis tri ct court di d not abuse i ts di scretion by denyi ng Patter son’s r equest for producti on without reviewing the notes in camera . Patter son also c ontends t hat thedist

rict court abus ed its discr etion by permitt ing the gov ern me nt to cro ss-e xam ine a def ens e w itnes s ab out her son ’s rec ent c rimi nal c onv ictio n. During cross-examination of defense witness Bertha W est, t he governmen t asked West whether she had a

“disl ike” for

the New JerseyU.S. Attorney’ s Office becaus e it ha d recently prosecuted her son, resul ting i n a 55-month sentence. Patter son argues t hat the “coll atera l” nature of the conviction rendered it i nadmissi ble. Patter son also a llege s that the convi ction was i mproper chara cter e vidence. In addition, Pat ters on contends t

hat the pro bativ e va lue o f the con victi on w as su bsta ntial ly outw eigh ed b y unf air p reju dice . Patters on’s c onten tion tha t the “c ollateral” nature of the evide nce re nder s it-4-

inadm issible h as no merit. B ias is no t gene rally consid ered a collatera l issue b ecau se it is so in tima tely tied to th e pr oba tive v alue of d irect evid enc e in th e ca se. See , e.g. , United States v . Scott , 267 F.3d 729, 735 (7th Cir . 2002) ( “[T]he FederalRules of Evidence do not cons ider bia s a co llateral issu e.”); United States v. Dunson , 142 F.3d 1213, 12 16 (10th C ir. 1998) (“[B]i as is ne ver cla ssifi ed as a col late ral matter which l ies bey ond the scope of inquiry.”); Justi ce v. Hoke , 90 F.3d 43, 48 (2d C ir. 1996 ) (“[E ]xtrinsic proo f tend ing to establ ish a r eason to fabricate is never collateraland may not

be excluded on t

hat ground.”) . Moreover, to the e xtent t hat anyissues relat

ing to West’ s bias c ould be cons idered collatera l, the de cision to perm it cross-e xam ination on co llateral m atters is “within t he sound disc reti on of the trialjudge. ” Un ited Sta tes v. R ockw ell , 781 F.2d 985, 988 -89 (3d Cir . 198 6). We are similarlyunconvinced by Patterson’s contenti on that the conviction of Mrs. W est’s son wa s im pro per cha racte r ev iden ce. Rele vant e viden ce of bias is n ot inad missib le me rely be cau se it h as a tang entia l rela tion ship to ev iden ce o f a w itnes s’s c har acte r. See United States v. Abel , 469 U.S. 45, 56 (1984) (de clini ng to addres s the admis sibi lit y of evidence under

Rule 608(b) bec ause “[i ]t was enough that such evi dence could pr operlybe found admissi ble to s how bias”). Thus, the government’s line of questi oning did not con stitute imp rop er ch arac ter ev iden ce. Finall y, the dis tri ct court did not er

r by refusi ng to excl ude the evi dence under Federal Rul e of Evidence 403, which renders evidence i nadmissi ble “i f its probati ve value-5-

is subs tanti ally

outweighed bythe danger of unfair prejudic e.” Fed. R. Evid. 403. As the Supreme Court has noted, proof of bias i s virt

ually always relevant because it bears on the pro bativ e va lue o f the fac ts to w hich the w itnes s ha s test ified . Abel , 469 U.S . at 52 . Patter son argues t

hat theknowledge that

West was the mother

of a felon had a “ certain, negati ve impact” on t

he jury , but doe s not further el aborate as to how Patterson was unfairl y pr ejudic ed. We recogniz e the poss ibil ity that t he government’ s questi oning of Be rtha W est (P atter son ’s sis ter) re vea led th at P atter son ’s ne phe w w as a con victe d fe lon . However, it i s extr emely unlikel y that thejurywas substantiall y sway ed by t he knowledge that Pat ters on’s nephew was a felon, parti cularl y si nce the j ury was already aware that Patter son associ ated with convict ed crimi nals suc h as ZacharyEpps. Thus, t he dist rict court ac ted well within i ts di scretion by determi ning that the probat

ive val ue of the con victi on w as n ot su bsta ntial ly outw eigh ed b y unf air p reju dice . See id . at 54 (noti ng that “assessing the probative v alue” of e vidence o ffered to sh ow b ias “and w eighing an y factors cou nse ling aga inst a dm issib ility is a m atter . . . for the d istrict cou rt’s so und jud gm ent” ). We AF FIR M the jud gm ent of the distric t court.-6- TO THE CLERK OF THE CO URT: Kindly file the fore going Not Precede ntialOpinion.

/s/Cynthia H. H all Circuit Judge