Opinion ID: 1315925
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: .Timeliness of Exercise of Rights Under the Waiver

Text: The record reflects that the Government waited seven days before objecting to one of the cross-examinations conducted by Murray, and waited twelve days before objecting to two other cross-examinations. Murray argues that the Government's failure to make contemporaneous objections constituted a waiver of its right to admit his proffer statements under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51 and Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a). We disagree. Murray's argument conflates the right to object to the introduction of evidence with the right to enforce a contract. See Liranzo, 944 F.2d at 77 (Pre-trial agreements, such as cooperation agreements and proffer agreements, are interpreted according to principles of contract law.). The Government was not lodging an objection to Murray's line of cross-examination; rather, it was exercising its contractual right under the proffer agreement. The proffer agreement did not preclude Murray from introducing evidence or making arguments contrary to the proffer agreement, nor did it provide the Government with a right to object when Murray did so. See Velez, 354 F.3d at 196 ([A] defendant remains free to present evidence inconsistent with his proffer statements, with the fair consequence that, if he does, `the Government [is] then ... permitted to present the defendant's own words in rebuttal.' (citation omitted)). Instead, it provided the Government with the right to use the proffer statements to rebut any arguments offered on Murray's behalf. Thus, the Government did not waive its right to introduce the proffer statements by not objecting contemporaneously to the cross-examinations.