Opinion ID: 976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Osale Gates

Text: Second, Mahdi asserts the court erroneously excluded the testimony of Osale Gates that government witness Abdul-Rahim had murdered one Dwayne T. Pate. During cross-examination of Abdul-Rahim, who had testified about an attempt on his life by Mahdi and Joseph Hooker [10] during which Abdul-Rahim's companion, Curtis Hattley, was shot and killed, defense counsel asked if Abdul-Rahim had ever handled a gun or saw a gun. The witness responded: I saw a gun before. Defense counsel followed up: In whose possession, Mr. Hattley's? and Abdul-Rahim responded Yes. 6/23am Tr. 94. Afterward, defense counsel sought to put Gates on the stand to testify that Abdul-Rahim had indeed handled a gun when he shot and killed Pate in order to contradict what defense counsel claimed was Abdul-Rahim's denial he had ever handled one. The district court excluded Gates's testimony, which ruling Mahdi now challenges. After much discussion, the district court ultimately excluded Gates's testimony on the ground that, assuming Abdul-Rahim had in fact denied ever using a gun, such a denial would not merit contradiction by extrinsic evidence, 7/15pm Tr. 14. The court explained it would not permit [Mahdi] to bring in a murder to show that [Abdul-Rahim] shot a gun  not a murder not related to any of the murders, 7/15am Tr. 123-24. Mahdi's counsel indicated he agree[d], suggesting that otherwise they would be [t]here for nine months on contradictions, id. at 124, and does not now challenge this aspect of the court's ruling. Mahdi again asserts, however, as he did below, that the court should have admitted the extrinsic testimony to show Abdul-Rahim's testimony was biased in the government's favor. 7/15pm Tr. 15. [11] See United States v. Abel, 469 U.S. 45, 50-52, 105 S.Ct. 465, 83 L.Ed.2d 450 (1984). The district court did not err in rejecting this argument. Mahdi contends Abdul-Rahim was biased because he wanted to curry favor with the prosecutors to ward off an investigation into his involvement in Pate's murder. The court reasonably rejected the argument because there was no connection between [Abdul-Rahim's] alleged shooting and the government nor any reason to infer that the government knew anything about th[e] event or was aware of it at any point in time prior to defense bringing it up here. 7/15pm Tr. 15. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Gates's testimony was not admissible to establish bias. Cf. United States v. Atherton, 936 F.2d 728, 733-34 (2d Cir.1991) (no abuse of discretion in excluding bias testimony about government informant's illegal drug use because probative value of such evidence... depends in large measure on some showing that the government was contemplating prosecution, or at least was aware, of the illegality and defendant failed to connect [informant's] alleged drug use to the relationship between [informant] and the government as there was no showing of any government awareness of that use or any danger to [informant] that he would be prosecuted because of it); United States v. Lamp, 779 F.2d 1088, 1095-96 (5th Cir.) (upholding exclusion of extrinsic bias testimony regarding government witness's unlawful possession of handgun where bias was based on far-fetched theory witness wanted to curry favor with prosecutor to avoid prosecution when there was no indication he believed he was being investigated or law enforcement was aware of possession before it was raised at trial), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1144, 106 S.Ct. 2255, 90 L.Ed.2d 700 (1986).