Opinion ID: 2718562
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination of Detective Clark

Text: Drake makes two objections to the district court’s limitation of her cross-examination of Detective Clark. First, she objects to restriction on the line of questioning about how Clark arrived at his interpretation of the word “one” to mean “one ounce of cocaine.” She also objects to the district court’s refusal to let her play recordings of additional intercepted telephone calls. “We review a trial court’s limitation of cross examination for an abuse of discretion. … Nevertheless, if the court’s ruling implicates the defendant’s constitutional rights, we review it de novo.” United States v. Neely, 980 F.2d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1992). Nos. 11-2267, 11-2288, 11-2535 & 11-2687 39 With respect to the cross-examination of Detective Clark about his interpretation of the word “one,” it appears from the trial transcript that Drake’s counsel repeatedly asked Clark how he arrived at his interpretation. App. Dkt. 70-3, 123-128. To illustrate: Q. Elisha Drake says “Can you have one of those ready for me?” Your opinion is that “one of those” means crack cocaine, correct? A. One ounce of crack cocaine, yes. … Q. Now, the contextual—the code language and the vague language used that has meaning within the context and within the understanding between the speakers is based on their understanding, correct? A. I don’t understand that question. Q. Okay. The language used, and the particular meaning of generic phrases or vague phrases or pronouns, their meaning specific to the call is based on the mutual understanding of the callers, of the parties speaking, correct? A. Yes. Q. So within that context, “one” could mean anything that the two of them have previously agreed or previously understood that “one” means? A. Between two people, yes, that’s correct. Q. And, for instance, if Elisha Drake were in the habit of buying one-eighth and she stated to Ramone Mockabee “Can you have one of those ready for me,” 40 Nos. 11-2267, 11-2288, 11-2535 & 11-2687 “one of those ready for me” could be whatever quan- tity she was in the habit of purchasing, correct? A. Based on my training and experience in this case – as applied to this case, with all the information, I believe this means one ounce. Q. And what information do you base that on? App. Dkt. 70-3, 123–25. Drake’s counsel did not clearly phrase his questions, and when he did not get the answer that he wanted from Clark, counsel simply asked the same question over again. Eventually, Detective Clark appeared to get somewhat frustrated and ended up reciting his history in law enforcement to the jury in an attempt to answer the question posed by Drake’s counsel. At that point, the judge called the attorneys up to the bench to put an end to the “fishing expedition” by Drake’s attorney. Id. at 128. Contrary to the characterization of events in Drake’s brief, it appears that the judge was actually trying to help Drake’s attorney by cutting off his questioning. After calling the attorneys to the bench, the judge warned Drake’s attor- ney, “I can’t figure out exactly where you’re headed, but it can’t be serving your client’s interest to have [Clark] rehearse all of his expertise and his involvement in this case. All you do when you ask these questions is buttress his testimony.” Id. The questions posed by Drake’s attorney seemed to lack direction, suggesting that counsel did not have a clear theory of defense. Similarly, the judge’s prohibition on Drake’s attorney playing telephone calls during his cross-examination of Clark appears to be the result of a lack of focus and organization by counsel. Drake’s attorney first claimed that he Nos. 11-2267, 11-2288, 11-2535 & 11-2687 41 wanted to play twelve phone calls to impeach Clark. Then he claimed that he “missp[oke]” and that he actually wanted to play twenty-five phone calls. App. Dkt. 70-3, 62. The attorney also admitted that there was no written transcript of these phone calls for the jury and that the court reporter “had such difficulty in understanding the slang and terminology used by the subject [in these phone calls] … that he was not able to get [the transcripts] done in time” (an admission that indicated that the jury would likely need a written transcript in order for the recordings to be meaningful). Id. at 61. Drake’s attorney had not previously disclosed to the prosecution that he intended to use these phone calls at trial. And when asked by the judge why he suddenly wanted to introduce them, Drake’s attorney could only make the general statement that he wanted to “rebut[] a statement made by the witness”—offering absolutely no specifics about the content of the phone calls. Id. Despite the lack of specifics offered, the judge did not prohibit Drake’s attorney from playing the telephone calls at the trial. Rather, the judge stated that she wanted transcripts of the calls before they were played for the jury because she “simply d[id]n’t know what [Drake’s attorney has] got in mind or what he’s got in his recording.” Id. at 66. The judge told Drake’s attorney that until he could establish a proper foundation for playing the recorded phone calls during cross-examination (by giving more specifics about what was said in them), she would not let him play the phone calls. The judge then remarked that the phone calls might “have to come in on [Drake’s] case-in-chief” instead of during crossexamination. Id. Under these circumstances, the district court’s limitation of the cross-examination by Drake’s attorney was reasonable. 42 Nos. 11-2267, 11-2288, 11-2535 & 11-2687 The district court did not violate Drake’s Sixth Amendment rights by limiting her cross-examination of Clark.