Opinion ID: 758679
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Violation of Fed.R.Evid. 615 by Hall and Cortes

Text: 212 On cross-examination Richard Hall testified that before he testified, his sister, Wonda Cortes, called him from jail after she had testified and the two discussed her testimony. Hall admitted that he had talked with his sister about her testimony [d]uring the time she was testifying and that they discussed some of the things that were happening to her on the witness stand, some of the things she had said, and some of the things the lawyers had asked her about. Gage and Varon argue that their convictions should be reversed because the district court refused to strike the testimony of Hall and Cortes pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 615, which provides for sequestration of witnesses during trial, and refused to allow them to explore outside the presence of the jury whether Cortes influenced Hall's testimony. 213 Although Cortes had been sequestered pursuant to Rule 615 at the time of her conversations with Hall, the district court has discretion to allow the testimony of a witness who violated a sequestration order, and its decision to do so is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wylie, 919 F.2d 969, 976 (5th Cir.1990). In evaluating whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, the focus is upon whether the witness's out-of-court conversations concerned substantive aspects of the trial and whether the court allowed the defense fully to explore the conversation during cross-examination. Id. (citation omitted). After a lengthy conference with counsel at which defense counsel suggested various alternative remedies for the Rule 615 violation, the district court concluded that defense counsel could cross-examine Hall further about his conversations with Cortes. The court refused, however, to allow defense counsel to question Hall or Cortes outside of the presence of the jury to explore the nature and extent of their conversations. 17 Defense counsel then declined to cross-examine Hall further about his conversations with Cortes. On redirect Hall testified that Cortes had not attempted to influence his testimony by telling him what to say in court. On recross Hall essentially reiterated his cross-examination testimony quoted above. 18 214 In the limited cross-examination of Hall conducted by the defense there was no indication that his testimony was tainted as Varon suggests. Moreover, as in Wylie, Varon and Gage fail to identify which portions of Hall's testimony they contend were either tailored or less than candid. Id. at 976. Because the defendants were allowed a full opportunity to cross-examine Hall, and because the testimony that was elicited from Hall did not indicate that his testimony was influenced by his conversations with Cortes, the district court did not err in refusing to strike the testimony of Hall and Cortes or to allow further questioning of Hall and Cortes outside of the presence of the jury.