Opinion ID: 160822
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Improper Impeachment of Captain Gardner

Text: Sheriff Claussen objects to the district court’s allowing Mr. Hall to ask a witness (Lieutenant Don Williams) on direct examination about the reputation for untruthfulness of Captain William Gardner, a Sheriff’s Department supervisor. At the time of the direct examination, Captain Gardner had not yet testified. Sheriff Claussen invokes our decision in Creekmore v. Crossno, 259 F.2d 697, 698-99 (10th Cir. 1958). There, we held that the district court erred in allowing one witness to testify about a second witness’s poor reputation for truthfulness before the second witness had testified. See id. at 698. (“The difficulty is that the impeaching evidence was received before the witness had testified. The credibility of [the second witness] was neither relevant nor material until he testified as to some material fact.”). In denying Sheriff Claussen’s motion for a new trial, the district court concluded that it had been improper to admit the evidence about Captain Gardner’s reputation before he had testified. However, the court further concluded that the evidence did not prejudice Sheriff Claussen. It noted that it had afforded Sheriff Claussen ample opportunity to challenge Lieutenant Williams’s testimony about Captain Gardner through cross-examination of Lieutenant Williams and direct examination of Captain Gardner. We agree with the district court’s ultimate conclusion on this issue. Sheriff Claussen has failed to establish that the impeachment of Captain Gardner through 37 Lieutenant Williams prejudiced his substantial rights.