Opinion ID: 199008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limits on Hernandez's Cross-Examination of Tirado

Text: 22 Hernandez objects that the district court improperly limited his cross-examination of Jose Tirado, a Puerto Rico Police officer working (at the time of the conspiracy) for the Drugs and Narcotics Division in the Guayama area. Agent Tirado testified that acting on a tip from Masso, he obtained a warrant and entered her apartment with Guayama officers Laboy Rolon and Juan Rodrguez. Tirado stated that he found Hernandez and two of his co-conspirators packaging a white powder, which field tests indicated was cocaine. The drugs were seized and stored in Rodriguez's locker. 23 Hernandez wanted to cross-examine Tirado about allegations that Rodrguez and other Guayama area officers were corrupt. The district court ruled that while questions on the chain of custody of the drugs would be allowed, you cannot benefit from somebody else's corruption, and it is immaterial to this case. The court reasoned that the corruption was immaterial because Tirado himself had never been accused of corruption and because the corruption of other officers at the local level did not implicate the federal prosecution. 24 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment secures a right to cross-examination in order to test the believability of a witness and the truth of his testimony. United States v. Carty, 993 F.2d 1005, 1009 (1st Cir. 1993). The right to cross-examine, however, is not unlimited. When a witness's credibility is at issue, the trial court may limit cross-examination as long as the court allows sufficient leeway to establish a reasonably complete picture of the witness' veracity, bias, and motivation. United States v. Laboy-Delgado, 84 F.3d 22, 28 (1st Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Confrontation clause challenges are reviewed de novo to determine whether defense counsel was afforded a reasonable opportunity to impeach adverse witnesses; once that threshold is reached, the trial court's restrictions on the extent and manner of cross-examination are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Balsam, 203 F.3d 72, 87 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Gomes, 177 F.3d 76, 80 (1st Cir. 1999)). 25 The district court's unwillingness to allow Hernandez to question Tirado about the corruption of other police officers did not prevent the jury from obtaining a reasonably complete picture of the witness' veracity, bias, and motivation. Laboy-Delgado, 84 F.3d at 28 (emphasis added). While a magistrate judge's pre-trial report adopted by the district court contained evidence that some police officers (including Rodrguez) had behaved corruptly in other drug cases, there was no allegation that Tirado was himself corrupt. Indeed, Tirado provided the United States with information that helped implicate other corrupt officers. Thus, any testimony tending to show that these other officers were dishonest would not implicate Tirado's veracity, bias, and motivation. More concretely, cross-examination that attacked Rodrguez's integrity would do nothing to cast doubt on Tirado's claims that (1) he personally saw Hernandez packaging a white powder, (2) he personally observed a field test indicating that the white powder was cocaine, and (3) he recognized the drugs from the laboratory as those seized from Hernandez. 26 Moreover, the district court did not completely bar Hernandez from questioning Tirado about Rodrguez. Rather, the court allowed extensive questioning as to how Rodrguez handled the evidence in this case, including the unusually lengthy storage in Rodrguez's locker and the miscounting of the bags of drugs. The district court retains wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on cross-examination in order to avoid confusion of the issues or extended discussion of marginally relevant material. United Statesv. Twomey, 806 F.2d 1136, 1139 (1st Cir. 1986). Since Hernandez was unable to offer any evidence that Rodrguez corruptly handled the case against Hernandez, it was not unreasonable for the court to limit Hernandez to questioning Tirado about these concrete factors relating to storage and quantification rather than allowing a broad inquiry into the corruption of third party police officers who were not appearing as witnesses.