Opinion ID: 353818
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Restrictions on the Scope of Cross-Examination

Text: 124 J. C. and Recea Hawkins contend that their Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was denied by the trial court's restrictions on the scope of cross-examination. In general, these restrictions concerned defense efforts to impeach the government's witnesses by exposing details of the agreements under which they testified. 125 As we said in United States v. Onori, 535 F.2d 938, 945 (5th Cir. 1976): 126 The Sixth Amendment confrontation clause guarantees to a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine a witness against him. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 404-05, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). This right is especially important with respect to accomplices or other witnesses who may have substantial reason to cooperate with the government. See, e. g., United States v. Greenberg, 423 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1970); Grant v. United States, 368 F.2d 658, 661 (5th Cir. 1966). Indeed, it is so important that the defendant is allowed to search for a deal between the government and the witness, even if there is no hard evidence that such a deal exists. See Grant v. United States, supra. What tells, of course, is not the actual existence of a deal but the witness' belief or disbelief that a deal exists. United States v. Dickens, 417 F.2d 958, 959 (8th Cir. 1969). 127 The first question we must address is whether the restrictions on cross-examination violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment rights, requiring scrutiny under the harmless error rule, or whether they were at worst abuses of discretion without constitutional dimension. We have long recognized that while the scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial judge, this discretionary authority to limit cross-examination comes into play only after there has been permitted as a matter of right sufficient cross-examination to satisfy the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Bass, 490 F.2d 846, 858 n. 12 (5th Cir. 1974). See also United States v. Mayer, 556 F.2d 245, 250 (5th Cir. 1977); Grant v. United States, 368 F.2d 658, 661 (5th Cir. 1966). Unless a ruling by the trial judge has completely foreclosed a line of questioning allowable as a matter of right, see, e. g., United States v. Greenburg, 423 F.2d 1106 (5th Cir. 1970); Grant v. United States, supra, it is often difficult to determine how much cross-examination is sufficient . . . to satisfy the Sixth Amendment. In Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the Supreme Court suggested a pragmatic approach to the problem: 128 While counsel was permitted to ask Green whether he was biased, counsel was unable to make a record from which to argue why Green might have been biased . . . (T)o make such an inquiry effective, defense counsel should have been permitted to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness. Petitioner was thus denied the right to effective cross-examination. Id. at 318, 94 S.Ct. at 1111 (emphasis in original). 129 In this case, the jury was well aware of the fact that most of the government's witnesses were co-conspirators and convicted felons, testifying under grants of immunity and other agreements with the prosecution. In no sense did the trial court foreclose cross-examination on this issue. We gather, from the generalized complaints lodged by J. C. and Recea in this appeal, that, on occasion, the court prevented further inquiry into certain details of the agreements between the government and its witnesses. Nevertheless, the jury was exposed to facts sufficient for it to draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witnesses, and counsel for J. C. Hawkins, in his closing argument, used facts developed on cross-examination to argue why (the witnesses) might have been biased. Davis v. Alaska, supra. In fact, counsel's argument could hardly have been more vociferous: 130 But what do we have as the witnesses who are trying to put it on Mr. Hawkins? You know what we have? We've got every person who's been caught doing this or that for the past six years, and what are they doing they're fighting for their lives up there . . . (T)hese persons were given an offer they could not refuse. They were given immunity; they were made promises; they had charges dismissed; they had letters written to probation officers; letters of recommendations to institutions. They couldn't turn those down and they gobbled them up, and they came here to spew out their guts against J. C. Hawkins. . . . And this room smelled, this United States courtroom, which is the symbol of justice in our society, stunk from the lies of the Government's witnesses. T. 2645-47. 34 131 In these circumstances, we hold that the restrictions on cross-examination did not rise to the level of a violation of J. C.'s or Recea's Sixth Amendment rights. 132 The only remaining question is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in restricting the scope of cross-examination. To establish an abuse of discretion appellants must show that the restrictions imposed upon their cross-examination were clearly prejudicial. Gordon v. United States,438 F.2d 858, 865 (5th Cir. 1971). Here, J. C. and Recea cite only two restrictions of any moment: (1) disallowing questions to determine whether the government had provided James Gunnells with a permit for a machine gun that ordinarily would not be permitted to . . . other people in the courtroom, and (2) forcing counsel for Robert Delph to inform the jury that she had no independent proof of a deal between state and federal authorities relating to a witness against Delph. Although it is apparent that the trial judge based these restrictions on erroneous legal principles, we cannot say that they were  clearly prejudicial to any defendant. 35 We do not wish to minimize the importance of cross-examination in criminal trials. However, after reviewing the voluminous record in this case, we are convinced that the few improper restrictions on cross-examination that were made were of too trifling a nature to warrant reversal of any defendant's conviction. 133