Opinion ID: 1225710
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of testimony as cumulative error.

Text: Castaldi's third challenge is to the district court's refusal to admit various testimony that it determined to be hearsay. Castaldi claims that the various denials collectively amount to cumulative error. Evidentiary rulings are, again, reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Aldaco, 201 F.3d 979, 985 (7th Cir.2000). In order for evidentiary rulings to amount to cumulative error, a defendant must show that multiple errors ultimately denied him a fundamentally fair trial. Alvarez v. Boyd, 225 F.3d 820, 824 (7th Cir. 2000). This requires showing that but for the errors, the outcome of the trial probably would have been different. United States v. Allen, 269 F.3d 842, 847 (7th Cir.2001). Castaldi points to the district court's decision to sustain a hearsay objection at some point during the testimony of six different witnesses. Castaldi claims that in each instance, the testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and thus was not hearsay. The government responds that the district court took this distinction into account when examining the government's hearsay objections. Indeed, it claims that in at least two instances the government's objections were sustained because defense counsel had not identified a relevant purpose for the statement aside from the truth of the matter asserted. Even assuming arguendo that the district court improperly excluded portions of the testimony on hearsay grounds, Castaldi does not present to this court any indication that the excluded testimony was so material to the case that, were that testimony admitted, the jury would have returned a different verdict. The testimony in question related to statements that Castaldi and other account signatories made to various witnesses about the existence of the trust account or payments from the account; ostensibly, this testimony would have established that various Union officials were aware of the grant funds. However, Castaldi does not point to any testimony of relevance to the charges in this case; none of the testimony indicates that Union or JAC officials knew that Castaldi was paying himself with grant funds, nor that they approved of those payments. The district court thus did not abuse its discretion by excluding the testimony in question; nor can Castaldi demonstrate that, had the testimony been admitted, the outcome of the trial would have been different. We find no cumulative error here.