FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT FEB 2, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11387 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 0 0 7 6 - C R - F T M- 3 3 - DN F U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s A N D R E W C R U M B L Y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( F e b r u ar y 2, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: A n d r e w C ru m b ly ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o rp o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to di s tr i but e c oc a i ne ba s e . O n appe a l , C rum bl y a r gue s tha tthe tr i a l c ourte rr e d by2

lim itin g c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n o f ag o v e rn m e n t w itn e s s , G ab r ie l W h itf ie ld , a s to W hi t f i e l d’ s bi a s , pr i oruntruthf ul ne s s , a nd pr i orc onvi c t i ons . B e c aus e w e f i nd no r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r , w e A F F I R M. I . B AC KG RO UN D A f e de r a l gr a nd j ury i ndi c t e d C rum bl y on thr e e c ount s of know i ngl y a nd w illf u lly p o s s e s s in g w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te a n d f o rd is tr ib u tin g c r a c kc o c a in e , in vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . §§ 841( a ) ( 1) a nd ( b) ( 1) ( C ) a nd 18 U . S . C . § 2. T he i ndi c tm e ntc ha r ge d s a l e s on thr e e s e pa r a t e da t e s i n 2005: 21 M a y , 1 J une , a nd 4 June. A t tr ia l, th e p r o s e c u to ra d v is e d th e ju ry in h is o p e n in g s ta te m e n t th a t it w oul d be he a r i ng f

i r s tf r om G abr i e l W hi t f

i e l d, apa i d i nf

orm a ntf orthe D rug E nforcement A dm i ni stra t i on (“ D E A ”) , w ho had k no w n C rum bl y f or se vera l ye ar s be f or e he boughtthe c r a c k c oc a i ne f r om hi m on the thr e e da t e s i n que s t i on. C rum bl y ’ s c ouns e l ’ s ope ni ng s t a t e m e ntf oc us e d on the c r e di bi l i ty of W hi t f i e l d, out l i ni ng abur gl a ry he c om m i tt e d i n 1990. W hi t f i e l d ha d pr ovi de d the g o v e rn m e n t w ith in f

o rm a tio n ab o u t o th e r s in v o lv e d in th e b u r g la ry a n d h a d o n ly re ce i ved tw o and a hal f y ears of pri son, ra ther than a po ss i bl e l i fe se nt ence . W hen defe nse c ou nsel began t o o ut l i ne a 199 7 o ff ense , the prosecut or obj ec t ed that

“ defe nse c ou nsel [w as ] m aki ng hi gh l y pre j ud i ci al st at em ent s abo ut[the]3

un derl yi ng cond uctof a G ov ernm entw i tness . ” R 6 a t134. T he gove rnm e nt in d ic a te d th a t it h a d n o t b e e n g iv e n a d v a n c e d n o tic e ab o u t C ru m b ly ’s in te n t to r e ly upon thi s 1990 c onvi c t i on. T he pr os e c ut ora l s o a r gue d tha tthe de t a i l s of W hi t f i e l d’ s pr i orc r i m i na l c onduc t , pa rt i c ul a r l y t o the e xt e nttha ti tw a s e i ghtor ni ne ye ar s ol d, had n o b eari ng on hi s bi as . D ef ense coun se l re spon ded that W hi t fi el d’ s r el at i on shi p w i th the po l i ce departm entov era num ber of y ears w as r e l e va ntt o s how bi a s . T he di s tr i c tc ourts us t a i ne d the obj e c t i on t o the ope ni ng s ta te m e n t, a d v is in g d e f

e n s e c o u n s e l th a t h e h a d c r o s s e d th e lin e in to a r g u m e n t. O n d ir e c t e x a m in a tio n , W h itf ie ld te s tif

ie d th a t th e D E A p a id h im in c onne c t i on w i th the pur c ha s e s tha the m a de f r om C rum bl y a nd tha the w a s not s ubj e c tt o a ny c r i m i na l c ha r ge s a ttha tt i m e . W hi t f i e l d i de nt i f

i e d the audi ot ape s of the t el epho ne ca l l s he m ade t o C rum bl y bef ore the bu ys and t es t i fi ed thatthey w er e a c c ur a t e . T he vi de os s how tha tthe a c tua l e xc ha nge s l a s t e d onl y s e c onds , a nd none o f th e v i d eo s cap tu red th e ex ch an g e o f m o n ey an d d ru g s. T h e iss u e o f W h it field ’s p rio r o ff en se s c am e u p ag ain d u rin g C ru m b ly’s co u n sel ’ s cro ss-ex am i n at i o n o f W h i t fi el d . T h e d i stri ctco u rtad v i sed d efen se c ouns e l tha the c oul d nota s k W hi t f i e l d aboutc onvi c t i ons m or e tha n t e n y e a r s ol d. W i th res pectt o the conv i ct i on s the defens e c ou l d ask abou t , the di stri ctcourt i ns truc t e d c ouns e l t o “ s t i c k t o the ba s i c f a c t s , ” tha ti s , the f

a c tof the c onvi c t i on a nd4

the nature of the cr i m e. Id. at18 5-86 . O n cross -e xam i nat i on , defe nse c ou nsel brou gh tou tthatW hi t fi el d w as char ged w i th b urgl ary and grand thefti n 2 00 2, that he e ve ntua l l y pl e d gui l ty t o gr a nd the f t , a nd tha the r e c e i ve d pr oba t i on. W h itf ie ld ag reed th ath e received p ro b at i o n , w h i ch n o rm al l y w as reserv ed fo r fi rsto ffen d ers, e v e n th o u g h h e “h a d b e e n th r o u g h th e s y s te m b e f o r e .” I d . a t 1 9 8 - 9 9 . W h itf ie ld a l s o t e s t i f

i e d tha the w a s a rr e s t e d f ors e l l i ng c ount e r f

e i tdrugs , i n vi ol a t i on of the t erm s of hi s probat i on , he gave a fa l se nam e w hen h e w as arre st ed, and h e r ec ei ved a y ear f or the offens e. A f t e rW hi t f i e l d t e s t i f

i e d, de f e ns e c ouns e l pr of

f e r e d tha the w oul d ha ve el i ci t ed on cr oss- exam i nat i on thaton 31 O ct ob er19 90 , W hi t fi el d and another p erso n w i th a g u n en t ered a st o re aft er i tcl o sed , h el d a g u n t o th e em p l o yees, or de r e d the m dow n t o the f l oor , t ook $9, 000 f

r om the of

f i c e , a nd the n l oc ke d the e m pl oy e e s i n am e a tl oc ke r . C rum bl y ’ s de f e ns e c ouns e l c ont i nue d tha tw he n the i nv es t i gat i on focuse d o n W hi t fi el d, he prov i ded the go vernm entw i th the i dent i t i es o f th e g u n m a n a n d af

o rm e rs to r e e m p lo y e e w h o h a d g iv e n th e m in f o rm a tio n . W h i t fi el d th en recei v ed a sen t en ce o f tw o an d a h al f years. D efen se co u n sel al so w a n te d to c r o s s - e x a m in e W h itf ie ld ab o u t a1 9 9 7 tr a f

f ic s to p a n d 2 0 0 2 b u r g la ry . D uri ng the 19 97 tra ff

i c s t op he tri ed t o run aw ayon foot , even aft eroffi ce rs t ac kl ed hi m , hand cuff

ed hi m , and spray ed hi m w i th p epper s pray . W hi t fi el d w as char ged5

w i th escap e, a fel o n y, b u tw as al l o w ed t o p l ead t o a m i sd em ean o r o f resi st i n g arrest w i thoutvi ol e nc e . I n 2002, de f e ns e c ouns e l c ont i nue d, W hi t f i e l d s t ol e adi a m ond neckl ac e f

rom the ho m e of s om eone he kn ew . W hi t fi el d l i ed t o the vi ct i m w hen s h e c o n f r o n te d h im b u t la te ra d m itte d to p o lic e th a t h e h a d s o ld th e n e c k la c e . D ef ense coun se l conceded thathe w as perm i tt ed t o est abl i sh thatW hi t fi el d w as c onvi c t e d of

gr a nd the f

t , i ns t e a d of

bur gl a ry , a nd w a s s e nt e nc e d t o pr oba t i on. D ef ense coun se l al so conceded thathe w as abl e t o el i ci tthatW hi t fi el d w as arre st ed l at erthatye arfor s el l i ng drug s, bu tproffe re d thatthe po l i ce re cords i nd i ca t ed that W hi t fi el d st at ed thathe sol d “ fa ke cr ac k cocai ne t o w hi t e boys bec ause [they w er e] to o d u m b to k n o w th e d if f e r e n c e .” I d . a t 2 2 4 . D e f e n s e c o u n s e l a r g u e d th a t th is be ha vi orw a s r e l e va ntt o C rum bl y ’ s de f e ns e tha tW hi t f

i e l d w a s adi s hone s tc on m a n w ho or c he s tr a t e d the c r i m e C rum bl y a l l e ge dl y c om m i tt e d. A f t e rhe a r i ng de f

e ns e c ouns e l ’ s pr of

f e ra nd a r gum e ntf

r om both pa rt i e s , the di s tr i c tc ourtc onc l ude d tha tthe f a c t s of the 1990 c onvi c t i on f

ora rm e d r obbe ry a nd th e 1 9 9 7 m is d e m e a n o rc o n v ic tio n f o rr e s is tin g a rr e s t w e r e n o t r e le v a n t a n d th a t, even i f they w er e, thei r pre j ud i ci al ef

fe ctou tw ei gh ed any probat i ve val ue un der F eder al R ul e of E vi dence 403 . T he courtfurther f ou nd thatdefe nse c ou nsel had b e e n g iv e n s u f

f ic ie n t o p p o rtu n ity to c r o s s - e x a m in e W h itf ie ld w ith r e s p e c t to h is bi as and m ot i ve.6

T he gove rnm e ntne xtc a l l e d E m m a nue l N oude w o, the D E A a ge ntw ho wo rk e d wi th Wh i t f

i e l d o n th e a l l e g e d tr a n s a c t i o n s wi th C ru m b l y . No u d e wo t e s t i f i e d tha the i ns truc t e d W hi t f i e l d t o c a l l C rum bl y e a c h t i m e , r e c or de d the t e l e phone c onve r s a t i ons , a nd pl a c e d ahi dde n vi de o c a m e r aon W hi t f i e l d' s pe r s on. B e f o r e th e 2 1 M a y 2 0 0 5 tr a n s a c tio n , N o u d e w o s e a r c h e d W h itf ie ld , in c lu d in g h is pe r s on, poc ke t s , s hoe s , a nd s oc ks t o e ns ur e tha the di d notha ve a ny drugs or w ea p o n s. N o u d ew o d ro v e W h it field to a lo ca ti o n a b lo ck aw ay fr o m C ru m b ly’s resi d en ce, an d W h i t fi el d cal l ed C ru m b l y t o t el l h i m th ath e w as i n th e v i ci n i ty. N ou dew o d i d n otse e the ac tual transac t i on because i tt oo k p l ac e w hi l e he w as turni ng hi s c a ra r ound. N oude w o di d s e e W hi t f i e l d w a l k a w a y f

r om am a n w hom N ou dew o b el i eved t o b e C rum bl y and re turn t o the ca r w i th suspect ed cr ac k coca i ne. B ef o re th e s ec o n d tran sa ctio n , N o u d ew o ag ain h ad W h it field ca ll C ru m b ly’s r e s i de nc e t o a rr a nge adrug pur c ha s e , s e a r c he d W hi t f i e l d, a nd de t e rm i ne d tha the w as no tcarryi ng any drugs or w eapo n b ef ore gi vi ng hi m the audi o and vi deo e q u i p m e n t . On th e s e c o n d a n d th i r d tr a n s a c t i o n s , o n J u n e 1 s ta n d 4 th , No u d e wo p ark ed so th ath e co u l do b serv e th e ex ch an g es an d i d en t i fy C ru m b l y. O n Ju n e 1 st a n d 4 th , W h itf

ie ld w a s g iv e n $ 3 0 0 a n d $ 4 0 0 , r e s p e c tiv e ly , a n d h e r e tu rn e d w ith s u s p e c te d c r a c kc o c a in e .7

O n c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, de f e ns e c ouns e l e l i c i t e d tha tthe s e a r c he s of W h itf ie ld w e r e n o t s tr ip s e a r c h e s a n d th e y w e r e c o n d u c te d in f r o n t o f af e m a le of f i c e r . D e f

e ns e c ouns e l a l s o ha d N oude w o a c know l e dge the di s pa r i t i e s i n the a m o u n t s o f

c r a c kc o c a i n e th a tWh i t f i e l d r e c e i v e d o n e a c h o c c a s i o n . No u d e wo ex p l ai n ed o n red i rectth atth e m ark etw as co m p l i cat ed , an d th ati td ep en d ed n o tj u st upon the w e i ghtof

the drugs butupon the pi e c e s a nd the r e l a t i ons hi p be tw e e n the se l l erand b uyer . T he j ury f

ou nd C rum bl y gui l ty of a l l three coun t s, and the di stri ctcourt s e n te n c e d h im to 2 3 5 m o n th s ’ im p r is o n m e n t o n e a c h c o u n t, to ru n c o n c u rr e n tly . T hi s appe a l f

ol l ow e d. I . DI S CUS S I ON

“ W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s e xc l us i on of t e s t i m ony about‘ c ol l a t e r a l c r i m e s i m pi ngi ng s ol e l y on aw i tne s s ’ s c r e di bi l i ty a nd be a r i ng no r e l a t i on t o the s ubj e c tm a tt e rof hi s orhe rdi r e c te xa m i na t i on. ’ ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. E dw ar ds, 96 8 F . 2d 11 48 , 11 52 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed). U nd erF eder al R u le o f E v id e n c e 4 0 3 , “r e le v a n t e v id e n c e m a y b e e x c lu d e d if its p r o b a tiv e v a lu e is su b st an t i al l y o u tw ei g h ed b y th e d an g er o f u n fai r p rej u d i ce, co n fu si o n o f th e i ssu es, orm i s l e a di ng the j ury , orby c ons i de r a t i ons of undue de l a y , w a s t e of

t i m e , or n e e d le s s p r e s e n ta tio n o f c u m u la tiv e e v id e n c e .”8

O n ap p eal , C ru m b l y fi rstarg u es th atth e tri al co u rterred b y l i m i t i n g cro ssexam i nat i on as t o W hi t fi el d’ s bi as . S peci fi ca l l y, C rum bl y argues thatthe di stri ct c ourt ’ s r e f

us a l t o a l l ow c r os s - e xa m i na t i on on W hi t f i e l d’ s 1990 a nd 1997 co n v i ct i o n s, an d i t s req u i rem en tth atC ru m b l y’ s co u n sel l i m i th i s cro sse x a m in a tio n r e g a r d in g W h itf ie ld ’s 2 0 0 2 c o n v ic tio n s d id n o t a llo w C ru m b ly to s how how e xc e pt i ona l l y a nd l e ni e nt l y W hi t f i e l d w a s tr e a t e d. B e c aus e the F e de r a l R ul e s of E vi de nc e do nots pe c i f i c a l l y a ddr e s s the a d m is s ib ility o f

e v id e n c e r e g a r d in g aw itn e s s ’s b ia s , a d m is s ib ilityis lim ite d o n ly by the r e l e va nc e s t a nda r d of R ul e 402. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L i nde m a nn, 85 F . 3d 1232, 1 2 4 3 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) ( citati o n o m itted ). M o re o v er , a li m it atio n o n a d ef en d an t’ s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on on apr ot otypi c a l type of bi a s m a y c ons t i tut e avi ol a t i on of the Co n f r o n t a t i o n Cl au s e o f

th e Si x th A me n d me n t . D e l a w a r e v . V a n A r s d a l l , 4 7 5 U . S. 6 7 3 , 6 8 0 , 1 0 6 S . C t. 1 4 3 1 , 1 4 3 6 ( 1 9 8 6 ) . S u b je c t to th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt h a s th e d is c r e tio n to lim it such cr oss- exam i nat i on . U ni t ed S t at es v. B ea l e, 92 1 F . 2d 14 12 , 14 24 (11th C i r. 1991) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . W e ha ve r e pe a t e dl y r e c ogni z e d the i m port a nc e of the ri gh tt o ful l cr oss- exam i nat i on w hen app l i ed t o the go vernm ent ’ s s t arw i tness or a w i tness w ho prov i des an ess ent i al l i nk i n the go vernm ent ’ s c as e. S ee e. g. , U ni t ed S t a t e s v. L a nkf

or d, 955 F . 2d 1545, 1548 ( 11th C i r . 1992) . N e ve rthe l e s s , the r i ght9

i s notw i thoutl i m i t a t i on, a s the S i xth A m e ndm e ntonl y pr ot e c t s c r os s - e xa m i na t i on tha ti s r e l e va nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. L y ons , 403 F . 3d 1248, 1255 ( 11th C i r . ) ( c i t a t i on o m itte d ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 6 S . C t. 7 3 2 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . W e h a v e h e ld th a t ac r im in a l d e f e n d a n t i s e nt i t l e d onl y t o a n opportuni ty f ore f f e c t i ve c r os s - e xa m i na t i on, not cr oss- exam i nat i on thati s e ff ec t i ve i n w hat everw ay , and t o w hat ever e xt e nt , the de f

e ns e m i ghtw i s h. T r i a l j udge s r e t a i n w i de l a t i tude in s o f a ra s th e C o n f

r o n ta tio n C lau s e is c o n c e rn e d to im p o s e r e a s o n ab le l i m i t s on cross -e xam i nat i on base d o n con ce rns abo ut , am on g o ther th i n g s, h arassm en t , p rej u d i ce, co n fu si o n o f th e i ssu es, th e w i tn ess’ s a f e ty , o rin te rr o g a tio n th a t is r e p e titiv e o ro n ly m a r g in a lly r e le v a n t. U ni t ed S t at es v. B apt i st a- R od ri gu ez , 17 F . 3d 13 54 , 13 66 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( i nt ernal q u o ta tio n s a lte r a tio n s a n d c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . A s s u c h , th e C o n f r o n ta tio n C lau s e is sa t i sf i ed as l on g as adi stri ctcourtperm i t s c ross -e xam i nat i on thatexpo se s the j ury t o fac t s s uffi ci entt o eval uat e aw i tness ’ cr edi bi l i ty and enabl es a c ri m i nal d e f e n d a n t to e s tab lis h as u f f ic ie n t r e c o r d f

r o m w h ic h h e c a n a r g u e w h y aw itn e s s is l ess th an rel i ab l e. Id . at1 3 7 1 (ci t at i o n s o m i tt ed ). “ [O ] n ce th ere i s su ffi ci en tcro sse xa m i na t i on t o s a t i s f

y the C onf

r ont a t i on C l aus e , f

ur the rque s t i oni ng i s w i thi n the di stri ctcourt ’ s di sc re t i on . T he t es tfor the C on fr on t at i on C l ause i s w hether a r e a s onabl e j uryw oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d as i gni f i c a nt l y di f

f e r e nti m pr e s s i on of

the w i tness ’ cr edi bi l i ty had coun se l pu rs ued the prop osed l i ne of cr oss- exam i nat i on . ” U ni t e d S t a t e s v. D i a z , 26 F . 3d 1533, 1539- 40 ( 11th C i r . 1994) ( i nt e rna l c i t a t i ons10

and q uo t at i on s om i tt ed). C ru m b ly ’s a tto rn e y w a s ab le to a c h ie v e h is d e s ir e d p u rp o s e b y a r g u in g to the j ury tha tW hi t f

i e l d ha d a n i nc e nt i ve t o l i e a nd e l i c i t i ng on c r os s - e xa m i na t i on tha tW hi t f

i e l d w a s c ha r ge d w i th bur gl a ry a nd gr a nd the f ti n 2002, buttha the r e c e iv e d o n ly p r o b a tio n , w h ic h n o rm a lly w a s r e s e rv e d f o rf ir s t o f f e n d e r s , d e s p ite th e f a c t th a t h e “h a d b e e n th r o u g h th e s y s te m b e f o r e .” R 6 a t 1 9 8 - 9 9 . W h itf ie ld a ls o te s tif

ie d o n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n th a t h e w a s a rr e s te d f o rs e llin g c o u n te r f

e it drugs , i n vi ol a t i on of

the t e rm s of

hi s pr oba t i on, tha the ga ve af a l s e na m e w he n he w a s a rr e s t e d, a nd tha the r e c e i ve d ay e a rf orthe of f e ns e . D e s pi t e the s e w r ongf ul a c ts , o n c r o s s - e x a m in a tio n d e f e n s e c o u n s e l q u e r ie d : Q : S o i n 2 00 0, 20 01 , you’ re w orki ng for the po l i ce . In 20 02 , you’ re c o mm i t i n g c r i me s ? A : Y e a h . Q: Fo rwh i c h y o u g e tay e a r ? A : Y e a h . Q: An d n o th i n g r e a l l y a l l th a tb a d h a d h ap p e n e d t o y o u ? A : N o . Q: Yo u ’ d p r e tty mu c h g o tt e n a wa y p r e tty mu c h c l e a n ? A : Y e a h . Id . at2 0 2 . T h e d i stri ctco u rtw as w i th i n i t s d i scret i o n i n l i m i t i n g cro ssex am i n at i o n o n th e d et ai l s o f W h i t fi el d ’ s p ri o r o ffen ses u n d er R u l e 4 0 3 b ecau se the j ury hea rd evi dence thatW hi t fi el d h ad re ce i ved sent ence s norm al l y r es erved for f i rs t -t i m e off

enders af t erw orki ng as a pai d i nform ant . H ad defense coun se l11

el i ci t ed the desi re d t es t i m on y r egar di ng W hi t fi el d’ s pri or conv i ct i on s, the j ury w o u l d n o th av e h ad a si g n i fi can t l y d i fferen ti m p ressi o n o f W h i t fi el d ’ s cred i b i l i ty, m o t i v at i o n , o r b i as. C rum bl y ne xta r gue s tha tthe tr i a l c ourte rr e d by de ny i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on reg ard i n g W h i t fi el d ’ s p ri o r u n tru th fu l n ess o n tw o o ccasi o n s. S p eci fi cal l y, C rum bl y s oughtt o c r os s - e xa m i ne W hi t f i e l d r e ga r di ng hi s l i e t o hi s f e m a l e f r i e nd re gardi ng hi s part i ci pat i on i n the bu rgl ary of herre si dence and the theftof her di am on d n ec kl ac e, and W hi t fi el d’ s pra ct i ce of se l l i ng fa ke cr ac k cocai ne. R u l e 6 0 8 (b ) o f th e F ed eral R u l es o f E v i d en ce p ro v i d es: S pe c i f i c i ns t a nc e s of

the c onduc tof

aw i tne s s , f

orthe purpos e of att ac ki ng or supp ort i ng the w i tness ’ char ac t erfor truthful ness , other than con vi ct i on of cr i m e a s provi ded i n rul e 609 , m ayno tbe prov ed by e xtr i ns i c e vi de nc e . T he y m a y , how e ve r , i n the di s c r e t i on of the c o u rt, if p r o b a tiv e o f

tru th f u ln e s s o ru n tru th f

u ln e s s , b e in q u ir e d in to o n cro ss-ex am i n at i o n o f th e w i tn ess (1 ) co n cern i n g th e w i tn ess’ c ha r a c t e rf

ortruthf ul ne s s oruntruthf

ul ne s s , or( 2) c onc e rni ng the c h a r a c te rf

o rtru th f u ln e s s o ru n tru th f

u ln e s s o f a n o th e rw itn e s s a s to w hi c h c ha r a c t e rthe w i tne s s be i ng c r os s - e xa m i ne d ha s t e s t i f i e d. A l though C rum bl y c om pl a i ns tha the w a s unabl e t o e l i c i tW hi t f i e l d’ s pr i or un truthful ness w i th res pectt o sel l i ng coun t er fe i tcr ac k cocai ne, W hi t fi el d t es t i fi ed tha the w a s a rr e s t e d f

ors e l l i ng c ount e r f

e i tdrugs a nd tha the l i e d t o pol i c e w he n he w a s a rr e s t e d by gi vi ng af a l s e na m e . T he di s tr i c tc ourta c t e d w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on in e x c lu d in g th is a d d itio n a l e v id e n c e , b e c au s e W h itf ie ld te s tif

ie d a s to th e tw o a c ts12

o f d is h o n e s ty th a t C ru m b ly s o u g h t to e lic it, a n d s e llin g f a k e c o c a in e n e c e s s a r ily i m pl i e s de c e i t . C r os s - e xa m i na t i on on the a ddi t i ona l f a c ttha tW hi t f

i e l d s ol d the f a ke c r a c k c oc a i ne t o w hi t e pe opl e , w ho he be l i e ve d w e r e “ t oo dum b t o know the di f f e r e nc e , ” R 6 a t224, w oul d ha ve be e n gr a tui t ous a nd thus notpr oba t i ve of u n tru th fu l n ess. C rum bl y a l s o a r gue s tha tthe tr i a l c ourte rr e d by de ny i ng c r os s - e xa m i na t i on of W hi t f i e l d r e ga r di ng hi s 1990 a nd 1997 c onvi c t i ons unde rR ul e 609. T he 1990 a rm e d r o b b e ry c o n v ic tio n w a s r e le v a n t to c r e d ib ility , C ru m b ly a r g u e s , b e c au s e it w a s av io le n t c r im e . A lth o u g h C ru m b ly d id n o t p r o v id e w r itte n n o tic e o f in te n t to us e W hi t f

i e l d’ s 1990 c onvi c t i on a s i m pe a c hm e ntunde rR ul e 609( b) , he c ont e nds thatthe fa i l ure t o d o so d i d n otprej ud i ce the go vernm entand thatadvance w ri tt en no t i ce w ou l d h ave c om prom i se d C rum bl y’ s theory of defe nse. R ul e 609 (a ) s t at es thatfor the pu rpose of a tt ac ki ng the cr edi bi l i ty of a w i tn ess: ( 1 ) e v id e n c e th a t aw itn e s s . . . h a s b e e n c o n v ic te d o f ac r im e s h a ll be a dm i tt e d . . . i f

the c r i m e w a s puni s habl e by de a th or i m pr i s onm e nti n e xc e s s of one y e a r [ , a nd i f

] the pr oba t i ve va l ue of a dm i tt i ng thi s e vi de nc e outw e i ghs i t s pr e j udi c i a l e f

f e c tt o the a c c us e d; a nd ( 2) e vi de nc e tha ta ny w i tne s s ha s be e n c onvi c t e d of ac r i m e s ha l l be ad m i tt ed i f i ti n v o l v ed d i sh o n esty o r fal se st at em en t , reg ard l ess o f th e p u n is h m e n t.13

W e ha ve he l d tha t“ R ul e 609 r e qui r e s tha te vi de nc e of pr i orc onvi c t i ons of

anonde f e nda ntw i tne s s be a dm i tt e d i f ( 1) the c onvi c t i ons a r e f orc r i m e s puni s habl e by death o r i m pri sonm enti n exces s of one ye ar , (2) the conv i ct i on s are l es s than t en ye ar s ol d, and (3) the evi dence i s bei ng used t o att ac k the w i tness ’ cr edi bi l i ty. ” U n ite d S ta te s v . B u r s to n , 1 5 9 F .3 d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) . I n a d d itio n , R u le 6 0 9 ( b ) r e q u ir e s th e p r o p o n e n t to g iv e “s u f f ic ie n t a d v a n c e w r itte n n o tic e o f in te n t to u s e [ ] e v id e n c e ” o f

ac o n v ic tio n m o r e th a n te n y e a r s o ld . C rum bl y di d notpr ovi de a dva nc e w r i tt e n not i c e of hi s i nt e nt i on t o us e the 19 90 conv i ct i on . T hu s, un der the m andat ory l angu age of R ul e 609 (b), the di stri ct c o u rt d id n o t e rrin e x c lu d in g e v id e n c e o f th e 1 9 9 0 c o n v ic tio n f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

R u le 609( a ) . T he 1997 m i s de m e a norc onvi c t i on f orr e s i s t i ng a rr e s tdi d noti nvol ve di s hone s ty orf

a l s e s t a t e m e nt . T hus , R ul e 609( a ) di d notpr ovi de aba s i s of ad m i ssi b i l i ty. I I . CONCL US I ON U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d a nd c ons i de r a t i on of the pa rt i e s ’ br i e f

s , w e f i nd n o rev ersi b l e erro r. A cco rd i n g l y, w e affi rm C ru m b l y’ s co n v i ct i o n s. AF F I RME D.