UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD

Gordon Reid

SEALED ORDER

Gordon Reid renews his ex parte motion for subpoenas to be

issued to Detectives Patterson and Mucci, Tony Moccia, and Harold

King. Reid previously moved for subpoenas for the same

individuals, arguing that they had information that he intended

to use to impeach Renee King, who has now testified on behalf of

the government. That motion was denied on the grounds that the

information sought was not admissible pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 608. On reconsideration, the court again denied the

motion after considering the application of Federal Rules of

Evidence 404(a)(2), 404(b), and 403.

Reid now argues in support of his renewed motion that

because the government introduced “extrinsic evidence” during its

examination of Renee King about her knowledge of and culpability

for the criminal activity of her brother-in-law, Harold King, and

his associate, Tony Moccia, her testimony has “opened the door”

for Reid to impeach her with testimony from the detectives,

Moccia, and King to contradict her testimony. He further argues

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 159 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 5
2

that the testimony of these witnesses is not governed by Rule

608(b), but instead must be evaluated under Federal Rules of

Evidence 402 and 403.

Once again, Reid is attempting to send this trial into a

detour to examine the criminal activity of others that is

unrelated to the events at issue in this case. King testified

that she was aware of her brother-in-law’s criminal activity and

that she told the investigating detectives what she knew. Reid

thoroughly cross-examined King on this subject. Unable to shake

her testimony, he now seeks testimony from additional witnesses

to show or imply that, contrary to her testimony, Renee King was

involved in that criminal activity. 

The court will not allow this trial to be sidetracked into

an examination of criminal activity that is unrelated to the

charge against Reid for which he is being tried in this case. As

was explained to Reid previously, Rule 608(b) precludes use of

extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter to impeach a witness’s

character for truthfulness. United States v. Tse, 375 F.3d 148,

166-67 (1st Cir. 2004). In this motion, Reid indicates that he

does not intend to use the additional witnesses’ testimony for

that purpose. Instead, he intends to impeach King’s testimony by

contradiction, based on a theory that the government “opened the

door” by introducing “extrinsic evidence” through her testimony

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 159 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 5
3

about that activity.

King’s testimony about the activities of Moccia and Harold

King was not “extrinsic evidence” of her own knowledge about

those events. United States v. Boulerice, 325 F.3d 75, 82 n.5

(1st Cir. 2003) (“Evidence is extrinsic if offered through

documents or other witnesses, rather than through [examination]

of the witness himself or herself.”) (internal quotation marks

omitted). The government did not introduce any other evidence

about King’s knowledge of the criminal activities of Moccia and

Harold King.

Reid contends that the testimony of the detectives, Moccia,

and Harold King is admissible to impeach Renee King by

contradicting her testimony about her lack of involvement in the

criminal activities. To the contrary, “largely for reasons of

efficiency, extrinsic evidence to impeach is only admissible for

contradiction where the prior testimony being contradicted was

itself material to the case at hand.” United States v. PerezPerez, 73 F.3d 224, 227 (1st Cir. 1995); accord United States v.

Camuti, 78 F.3d 738, 744 (1st Cir. 1996) (“Ordinarily, extrinsic

evidence is not admissible to impeach by contradiction, but an

exception exists where the contradiction is on a material

issue.”). The criminal activities of Moccia and Harold King are

collateral matters that are not material to this trial. “A

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 159 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 5
4

matter is collateral if the matter itself is not relevant in the

litigation to establish a fact of consequence, i.e., not relevant

for a purpose other than mere contradiction of the in-court

testimony of the witness.” United States v. Marino, 277 F.3d 11,

24 (1st Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Therefore, the testimony Reid seeks is inadmissible to use for

impeachment by contradiction. 

To the extent Reid argues that the testimony of the four

listed individuals is admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence

402 and 403, he is mistaken. Rule 402 states that all relevant

evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by, among

other things, the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 403 states

that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is

outweighed by “the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the

issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue

delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence.”

King’s testimony about the collateral matters involving her

brother-in-law and Moccia has no probative value as to the charge

against Reid, and therefore, extrinsic evidence is not admissible

to contradict her statement. Further, the minimal probative

value of any additional evidence on these collateral matters is

far outweighed by the danger of confusing the issues and

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 159 Filed 02/17/06 Page 4 of 5
5

misleading the jury and by considerations of undue delay and a

waste of time. 

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s renewed motion

for subpoenas (document no. 156) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

__________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

February 17, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 159 Filed 02/17/06 Page 5 of 5