The H onorab le A m y J. St. Ev e, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the United 1 S t a t e s Di s t r i c tCo ur t, Nor ther n Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 09

- 2046 U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A A R ON M ICHAELL INZY, S R ., D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 08- CR-40009

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judge
.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 26, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 27, 2010

Befo re F LA UMa nd W OO D , C i r c uit Ju dg es , a nd S T . E VE , D i s t r i ctJudg e . 1 S T . E VE , D i s t r i ctJudge

. On J anuary29 , 20 08, a federa l gran d j ury ind icted De fend an t A aro n M ichae l L inzy, Sr

. and his co - defe nd an t J ar vel l J ones with o ne co unt of2 N o. 09

- 2046

In h i s a ppe l l a t e br i e f, Li nz y a l s o c ha l l e ng e d the di s t ri ct 2 cour t ’ s de ni a l o fh i s m ot i ont o s up pr e s s e vi de nc e . Ato r al a r g u m e n t, d e fe n se c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d th a tth e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’s decisi o n u nd er the ci rcum st ances w as prop er under Illin o is v. Cab al l es, 543 U.S

. 405, 409, 125 S. Ct. 834, 160 L. Ed

. 2d 8 4 2 (20 0 5 ). conspi ra cy to dist ribute v ar ious contr ol l ed substa nces, na m ely, c r ac kc o ca ine, methylened ioxy-m eth am p he ta m ine ( ecst asy ) , and m ar ij u an a (Count I ) , and one count o f unlaw fu l poss ess i on with i ntent to dist ribute c ra ck c oc ain e, ec st as y, an d m ar ij u an a (C ou n t II). See 21 U

. S. C. §§ 84 1(a )( 1) , 84 1( b) ( 1) ( A , C, D), 84 6. On October15 , 20 08, a j ury convi cted Li nzy o n both counts ofthe I nd i ctm ent, and on A pri l 17, 20 09, the dist ri ct c ou rt s entence d Linzy to a t e r m o f l i fe i mpr i s o n me n t o n b o th c o u n t s , t o r un concurr entl y, te n yea rs ’ superv i sed rele ase , and a $ 200 sp ec ial a ss es sm en t. O n ap p ea l, L in zy ch all en ge s h is convi cti on a rg u in g that the di str i ct c ourtabuse d i ts d i s c r e t i o n i n r e s t r i c t i n gd e fe n s e c o u n s e l ’ s c r o s s - e x a mi na ti o n o fh i s c o - d e fe n d a n tJ o n e s . We a ffi r m the 2 dist ri ct c ourt
.
F AC T UAL B AC KGR OUND I n e a r l y 2 0 0 7, L i n z y a n d two o th e r me n, D e s h a wn H em p h i l l a n d M ar q u is G en tr y, live d in a n ap ar tm en t in Ch ar l es City, I owa f ro m w hi ch they sol d c ra ck, ec st asy, and mar ij ua na . I n Apr i l 2 0 0 7, J a r v e l l J o ne s , wh o was l i ving i n El g i n, I l l i no i s, co nt ac te d H emphi l l an d sa i d he needed to get out of the Ch i cago ar ea because ther e w asN o. 09

- 2046 3

a warr ant f orhi s a rr esto n fi rs t- d egree m urder charg es. A t Hem phil l ’ s s ugges ti on, Jone s j oi ned H em phil l, Gentry, and Linzy i n th e C harl es Cityapar tm ent a nd so on s t a rt ed s e l l i ngdr ug s wi th the m. J o ne s ’ g i r l f r i e nd , J a s mi ne S pa t e s , a l s o mo v e d int o the Ch a r l e s Ci t y apar tm en t later that year. Linzy, H em phil l, Gentry, and J ones w orked i n shi fts s e l l i n gd r u g s . T o g e th e r, th e f o u r me n s o l d a b o u t 6 3 g r a ms or1/ 16 ofa ki l ogr am o fcr ack a week. W hen thei r cra ck supp l y was r unning l ow, H em phil l co ntacte d his cr ack s up pl i e r, a ma n na med “ Ka ne , ” wh o l i v e d i n M a y wo o d, I l l i noi s, a suburb ofChica go, to o b ta in a nother“6 3”. Bec au se Li nz y was the o nl y on e i n the g r o up wi tha dr iver’s li ce ns e, he o fte n t r av el ed to M ay woo d t o pi ckup the c ra ck. I n early N ovem ber 20 0 7, Jon es w en t to Ch icago for a f ri end’s bi rthd ay. W hi l e he w as ther e, J ones purchase d e c s t a s y a n d ma r ij u a n a t o t a k e b a c kt o I o wa . O n N o v e mbe r 6 , 2 00 7, Hem phi l l c al l ed J one s i n Chi ca g o i nf o r m i ng hi m tha t Li nz y was c o m i ngt o Chi ca g o to “co p so m e” a nd th atJ o ne s co ul d r i de ba ckt o I o wa wi thLi nz y . Aro und 10: 30 p. m . on N ove m ber 6, 2007, Linzy, ac c om panie d byJ one s’ g i r l f r i en d S pat es , a r r i ve d i n Chi ca g o a nd pick ed up Jo nes a t th e house w here he was s tay i ng. They th en d ro ve to K an e’s h ou se in M ay w oo d . U p on arr i va l, Linzyand J ones went i nto the ho use where Linzy pai d K ane a pp ro xi m ate l y $1 ,200 and r ecei ved a quanti ty ofcr ack f ro m hi m . A ftergo i ng to Kane’s house , Li nzy, J ones, a n d S pates m ade another sto p i n Chicag o w h er e Jo n es p ick ed u p a r e d su itc as e t h at co n ta in ed h is4 N o. 09

- 2046 cl othe s, al ong w i th the ecs tas y a nd m ar ij uana thatJ ones p revi o us l y ha d pur ch as ed. The r ea fte r, Li nz y putthe cra ck i n J one s’ r ed sui tcas e, wh i ch w as i n the tr unk of Linzy ’ s s i l verCadil l ac. Li nzy, J on es, and Spate s then bega n to dri ve backto I owa. At abo ut1 : 30 a . m . o n Nov ember 7, 2 00 7, whi l e dr i ving w estbound on I nter sta te 80 i n Rock I sl and C ounty, I l l i noi s, St ate Troo per J ar ed St een obs er ved a si lve r Cad i l l ac w ith I ow a li cen se p lates im p rop erly c rossing over a l ane l i ne i n violati on o fI l l i noi s l aw . Tro operS tee n f o l l o wed the Ca di l l acb ec au se he was c o nc erne d the dri verm i ght b e u n d erthe i nfl uence o fal cohol

. H e a l so ac tiva te d hi s i n- ve hi cl e vi deo c amer a an d us ed hi s o nboar d com pu terto r un the s ilverCadil l ac’ s r egi str ati on i nfo rm ati on. Fr om hi s com pu teri nquir y, Tro operS tee n l ea r ne d tha t t he Ca di l l acwas r eg i st er ed to Li nz y, who l i ved i n Charl es City, I owa. Tro operS tee n al so l ear n ed th at Linzy had a v al i d I owa dri ver ’ s l i cense, but that hi s dr i v i ngp r i v i l e g e s i n I l l i no i s h a d b e e n s us pe nd e d. A s Tr oo per St een c on tinued to f ol l ow the si l ver Cad i l l ac, he s aw i t i m proper ly cro ss ove r the l i ne se parating th e d rivi ng l an e from t h e p a s sing lane for a seco nd ti m e. A t that poi nt, Troo per St een turned on his emer g en cyl i g ht s an d i nitiated a tr affi c st o p. Af te r the Cadi l l acpul l ed o ve r, Tr ooperS te ena ppr o ac he d the dri verwh o i denti fi ed hi m sel fas Li nzy. Tro operS tee n then s aw thatthe Cad i l l ac had t w o passenge rs , a w om an in the front an d a m a n i n th e back

. Th ereafter, Tr o o perS teen ask ed Li nz y f o r hi s dr i ve r ’ s l i ce ns e an d r eg i st r at i o n. Li nz y pr o vi ded Tr o o perS te en w i ththeN o. 09

- 2046 5 requ ested doc um en ts an d answ ered Troop er Ste e n’s q u es tio n s “ in an alm os t fra n tic m an n er .” A fterh e obtai ned Linzy’ s dri ver ’ s l i cense and reg i str ati on, Tro operS tee n re turned t o hi s s quad car, r adio ed h is h e ad q u ar te rs , an d co n firm ed th at L in zy ’s Illin ois dri vi ng pri vi l ege s had be en suspended. Trooper St een w ent b ack to the Cad i l l ac, ar re ste d Linzy f ordri vi ng o n a su spen ded l i ce ns e, a nd pl ac ed hi m i n the b ac ko fthe sq u ad ca r. T ro op er Ste en as ke d L in zy if eit h e r of h is passenge rs had a dr i ve r’s l i cense. Li nzy a nsw er ed th atthe y di d no t an d the n Tr o o perS teen sp oke to the pas se ng er s. The w o m ani den ti fi ed he r se l fa s J as m i ne Sp at es . Th e m an , w h o w as lat er d e t e r m in ed to be Jarv ell Jon es , i denti fi ed hi m sel fas “Deer i c M osl ey. ” N ei ther Spate s no r “M osl ey” had a dr i ver ’ s l i cense. B ecause nei therpasse ngerco uld dri ve Linzy ’ s ca r, Tro oper Steen call ed anot he r t roop er forassistan ce to tran sp ort the pass enger s fro m the ro adsi de. Tro operS tee n al so cal l ed f ora tow tr uck. A p p roxi m ate l y fi ftee n m i nutes l ate r, Tro operDan E ric k so n, who was a K- 9 ha ndl er, a r r i ve d a t th e sc en e to assist w ith tran sp ort ing the pa ssen gers. T roop ers St een a nd Eri ckson deci ded to have Eri ckso n’s dog, w ho was cer ti fied to dete ct the o dor ofdrugs, co nd uct a “free a i r s ni ff ” o fLi nz y ’ s ca r . At the c ar ’ s tr unk, the dog a l er ted to the prese nce o fdrugs . T rooperS tee n th ens ea r ch ed th e trun k and f o und the r ed su i tc as e co ntai ni ng cr ack, ecs tas y, and m ar ij uana. On J une 1 1, 2 00 8, J o ne s pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the c o nspi ra cy charg e in Count Io fthe I nd i ctm ent purs uant to6 N o. 09

- 2046 a pl ea agr eem ent. Pursuant to Fe deralRule o fCri m i nal P ro cedure 11( c) ( 1) ( C), the gov er nm ent a gr eed to cap J ones ’ se ntence at th e m an datory m i ni m um se ntence of 20 yea rs . In re turn, J ones ag reed t o coo perat e full y with t h e g o ve rn m en t, in c lu d in g t o t es tify atL in zy ’s t ria l. Befo re tr i al, Li nzy m ove d i n l i m i ne to i m pea c h J ones wi thhi s us e o fthe a l i as “ Dee r i c M o sl ey ” an d wi ththe f ac t th a th e h a d a n a c t i v e a r r e s twa r r a n ta n d a p e n di ng fi rs t- deg r ee murde r c ha r g e i n Co o kCo unty, I l l i no i s. The d i s t r i c tc o u r tr u l e d th a tL i n z y c o u l d qu e s t i o n J o n e s a bo ut the al i as, but coul d o nl y re fer to the pe n d in g m urder c h ar ge as a “v er y s er iou s fe lon y c h ar ge .” A t Li nzy’ s j ury tr i al, J ones te sti fi ed that he had pl eaded g ui l tyt o pa r ti ci pat i ngi n a fede r aldr ugc o ns pi r ac y a nd that pu rs uant to hi s pl ea agree m en t, he ag re ed to coo perat e wit h the gov er nm ent. J ones furtherte sti fi ed that he cal l ed H em phil l i n I owa i n A pri l 20 07 because he had an a cti ve ar re st w ar ra nt and w as tr yi ng to ge t ou t o fC h ica go . Jon es ad m itt ed th at h e s old d ru gs in Cha r l es Ci ty, I o wa s ta r tingi n Ap ril 20 07a nd tha t he sol d drugs with Linzy

. I n additi on , Jon es tes ti fi ed that K ane, who l i v e d in the Ch i c a g o s ub urb o fMay wo o d, su pp l i ed thei r cra ck. H e furtherst ate d that hi s s ourc e f orecs tas y was i n Chicag o. M or eov er, on dir ect exam i nati on, J ones conceded that he sm o k ed m ar ij ua na e ve r y da y a nd us ed ec st as y a nd d r a n ka l c o h o l o n th e we ek en d s o r s p e c i a l o c c a s i o n s . He fur th era dm i tt ed to us i ngPCP ( phe nc y li d i ne ) dur i ng the Novem ber20 07 w eek end i n Chicag o bef or e h e w as ar re ste d. J ones st ate d t hat hi s drug use di d not a ffectN o. 09

- 2046 7 hi s abi l i ty to tes ti fy. H e a l so tes tifi ed that he had a pri or fel ony convi cti on f or posse ssi on of a contr ol led subst an ce . I n a d d i ti o n, J o ne s ex pl aine d the de ta i l s l ea di ng up t o hi s a nd Li nz y ’ s a r r e s t, a dmi t t i ng tha t he ga ve Illino is St at e T ro op er Ste en th e f als e n am e, D ee ric M o sl ey . He a l so t es ti fi ed th athe ha d a n o utsta ndi ng w ar ra nt f ora “se ri ous fel ony offense backin Chica go” an d th a tth i s wa s a s e p a r a t e c a s e fr o m th e fe d e r a l dr ug ca se . J o ne s was no t pr o m i se d a nd di d n ot ex pec t an y be ne fi t as pa r t o fhis c o o per at i o n de alwi ththe g o ve r nm en t in co n n ec tio n w ith th is “ se riou s fe lon y off en se .” On cros s- exam i nati on, de fen se counselquesti oned J ones abou t h is 2002 fel ony offense ofa contr ol l ed substa nce i n Cook County, to w hi ch he pl eaded gui l ty and w as sente nced to pr ob atio n. Counselspeci fi cal l y quest i oned J ones abo ut usi ng and s elling drugs w hi l e he w as on proba ti on t o w hi ch J ones adm i tte d. Defe nse c ounselal so questi oned J ones abo ut hi s guil ty ple a to t h e co nspir acy ch arge, includ ing the sent en cing ca p at the m an d atory mi n i mu m o f2 0 y e a r s . I n a d d i t i o n, de f e ns e c o u n s e l i mp ea c h ed J ones abo ut hi s drug and al coholuse because he to l d the Un i ted S tat es Pro bati on Officerthathe ha d used di ffe r e nta mou nt s o fdr ug s tha n wha th e t e s t i f i ed to on di re ct e xam i nati on. Fur ther m or e, wh en defense c ou n se l as ke d Jon es w h y h e d id n ottu rn h im se lf in w he n th ere w as a w arran t out f or his arrest on a very se r i o us fel o ny c ha r g e, J o nes rep l i ed th athe di d no t want to go t o jail. C ou n se l also qu es tio n ed Jon es ab o u t h is alia s, an d Jon es ex p lain ed t h atD ee ric M os ley w as h is co us i n. J o ne s co nc ede d tha t he g av e Tr o o per Ste ena f al se nam e a nd date ofbi rth beca us e h e w anted to8 N o. 09

- 2046

avo i d bei ng ar re ste d on th e outsta nd i ng warr ant. J ones furtheradm i tte d that when he fi rs t deci ded to co operate w i th federa l la w enfo rce m ent o ffi cer s, he g ave the a l i as Deeri c M osl ey to the o ffi cer s. Fin ally, J ones adm i tte d on cr oss - exam i nati on that he w as a t ruthful p erson “s om et im es .”

A N A L Y S IS On app eal, Li nzy c hal l enges t h e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s r est ri cti on o fJ ones ’ te sti m ony and cro ss- exam in at i on r egar ding hi s a cti ve a rre st w ar ra nt f orfi rs t- degre e m u rd er ch ar ge s in C oo k C ou n ty . L in zy sp ec ifica lly ar gues that J ones was a m ate ri algo ver nm en t w i tness w hos e testim ony w as essen tial to the govern m en t’s case , a n d thus the defense theo ryr equi re d that c ounsel at ta c k Jon es ’ cr ed ibilit y “ w ith ev er y w ea p on ath an d .” A cr im in a l d efe n d an t’s righ t t o c on fro n t w itn es se s is a fund am entalr i ght e sse nti alto a f ai r tr i alas guar antee d b y t h e Six th A m en d m en t’s C on fro n ta tio n C lau se . See D el aw a re v . Van Arsdall, 47 5 U.S

. 67 3, 67 8, 10 6 S

. Ct. 14 31, 89 L .E d .2d 67 4 (1 98 6); P o inter v . Texa s, 38 0 U.S

. 40 0, 40 3- 04, 85 S. Ct. 10 65, 13 L. Ed .2d 9 23 ( 1965 )

. U nd erthe Si xth A m en d m en t’s Con frontati on C lause, a district cou rt m u st allow effe c tiv e c ro ss - ex am in at ion

. Se eD avi s v. A la ska , 415 U

. S. 30 8, 31 7, 94 S

. Ct. 11 05 , 3 9 L.Ed. 2d 347 ( 1974 ) ( “ W e h a v e r e c o g ni z e d tha tthe e xp o s ur e o fa wi tne ss ’ mot i va ti on in te st i fy i ngi s a pr o pera nd i m po r ta nt functi on o fthe const i tuti onal i ty prot ecte d ri ght o fcr oss ex am i nati on. ”)

. “[ W ] hen deci ding w hetherl i m i ts on cr o ss - ex am inati o n a r e per m i ss ibl e, we m us t fi r stdi st i n-N o. 09

- 2046 9 gui sh be tw een the co re val ues ofthe Confr ontat i on C lau se an d m or e p er ip h er al c o n c er n s w h ich rem ain w i thi n the tr i alco urt’ s a m bi t. ” U nited Sta tes v. R eyes, 54 2 F

. 3d 58 8, 5 93 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. “ I fthe ‘ core value s’ o fthe C onfron tation C lause rem ain intac t, w e m erely ensu re that th e di str i ct c ourt ’ s e xerci se ofi ts w i de dis cre ti on i n l i m i ti ng cr oss - exam i nati on was notabusi ve. ” Id. ; see a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v . R e c e n d iz, 557 F.3d 511 , 530 (7th C ir. 20 09 ) (“A ju d ge h as br oa d d isc re tio n to p lac e re as on ab le lim its on cr os s-e x am in at ion , ba se d on co n c er n s o f, inter al i a, confu sion of the issues an d relevan ce.”). I n d eterm i ni ng wh etherthe dist ri ct c ourtabuse d i ts disc re ti on by l i m i ti ng cr oss - exam i nati on, we m ust e xam i ne wh ether the j ury had suffi ci ent det ai l s about the witn ess to ass ess the w i tness ’ m oti ves and bi ases. See Rec e ndiz, 55 7 F.3 d at53 0-3 1. O n th e o th e r h an d , w h er e t h e lim it i m posed on cro ss-e xam i nati on i m pli cate s the co re val ues of t h e C onfro ntati on Cl ause, we re vi ew the l i m i tat i on deno vo. Se ei d. at 5 3 0; U nited Sta tes v. Kha n, 508 F. 3d 413, 418 (7th C ir. 2007). I n R ec endiz , we ex p lai ned tha t “[ o ] ne s uchc o r e va l ue i s the a b i l i t y t o e xp o s e a wi tne s s ’ s mot i v a t i on f or te st i fy i ng, hi s bi as , o r hi s po ss ibl e i nc en ti ve s to l i e, ” but “once a tr i alco urt perm i ts a defendant to ex p ose a w i tne ss’s m o ti va ti o n, ‘ i t i s o fpe r i phe r alc o nc ern t o the Si xth Am e nd men th o w muc h o pp o r t un i t y de fe nse c o un s e l g e t s t o h a mm e r tha tp o i nth o me t o the j ur y . ’ ” Id. at 530 ( ci ta ti o n o m i tt ed)

. W e fur th ere xpl aine d tha t th e “r i ght t o confro ntation is noti m pli cate d w here ‘ l i m i tations on cro ss- exam i nati on di d not deny the defendants the o pp or tuni ty to estab lish thatthe w itn ess es m ay10 N o. 09

- 2046 have had a m oti ve to l i e; r ather, th e lim itat i ons denie d them the opportunity t o add extra de tail to th at m ot ive .’ ” Id. ( em phasi s in ori gi nal, ci tat i on o m i tte d). I n other w o r ds , “ the Co nfr o nt a t i o n Cl a us e g ua r a nt e e s o nl y ‘ an o p p o rt unityf oreffecti ve cro ss- exam i nati on, notcr oss exam i nati on that i s e ffecti ve i n w hatev er w ay, and to wha t e v e r e xt e nt, the de fe ns e mi g htwi s h. ’ ” K e nt uc ky v

. Stin cer, 48 2 U.S

. 730 , 7 39, 10 7 S

. Ct. 26 58, 96 L. Ed

. 2d 631 ( 1987 ) ( ci ti ng D ela w a re v. Fensterer, 474 U

. S. 15, 20, 10 6 S.C t. 29 2, 8 8 L .E d .2d 15 (19 85 ) (p er cu ria m ) (em p h as is in ori ginal))

. H er e , de fe ns e c o un s e l c o nc e de d tha twe wo ul d hav e t o e xt e nd D avis and i ts prog eny t o fi nd the core val ues o fthe Co nfr o nt at i o n Cl au se a t i ss ue . W e a r e no t wi l l i ng to do so gi ven the per ip h er alco ncer ns i m pli cate d by th e li m itation. B ased on Jones’ trialtestim ony , Lin zy’s counselwas gi ven a m ple o pp or tuni ty to est abl i sh J ones ’ m oti vati on f orl yi ng and to at tackJ ones ’ cr edibi lity

. S ee D a vis, 41 5 U.S

. at31 7. I n part i cul ar, d efense counsel questi oned J ones about hi s 2 002 fel ony offense f orposses si on o fa contr ol led substance i n Cook County to w hi ch he ple aded guil ty. Defe nse counsel further questi oned J ones abou t using and se l l i ng drugs , hi s guil ty pl ea i n th e pr es en t m at te r, hi s us e o f an al i as, and the war r an t f o r hi s ar r es t co ncerni nga “ se r i o us fel o ny offense backi n Chicag o. ” The speci fi c nature ofthe fel ony, n a m ely, first- d egree m urd er, m ay ha ve ad d ed “ext ra det ail ” t o J ones ’ m oti ve to l i e, but i ts om i ssi on di d not depri ve Linzyo fhi s o pp or tuni ty to effecti vel y c ro ssex am in e Jo n es . See Stin cer, 48 2 U .S. a t 7 39 ; Rec e ndiz, 55 7 F. 3d at 530. Defense counselthr oughl y c ro ss-e xam i nedN o. 09

- 2046 11 J o ne s . Be c a us e the j ur y ha d a b un da nt e v i de nce t o ap p raise J one s’ m otivation for testifyi ng , th e d istri ct cou rt d id n otab u se its d isc re tio n in lim itin g Jon es ’ cr os s-e x am inati on co ncer ni ng the natur e o fh is ar rest w ar ra nt. See R ecend iz, 55 7 F

. 3d at5 30

- 31

. I n s um , “ th er e was no shor tag e o fcr oss - exam i nation exposi ng [ J ones ’ ] m oti ve to l i e. ” U nited Sta tes v. M cL ee, 436 F.3d 751 , 762 (7th C ir. 2006 ).

C ONC L US I ON Forthe f or ego in g rea sons, we affi rm the j ud gm ent o f the di str i ct c ourt
.

4- 27- 10