Opinion ID: 1433870
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Lack of thoroughness of the investigation

Text: Long was the only person Schwerb and Chambers interviewed before arresting Beck. At the first trial, the district court granted the Government's motion to preclude Beck from arguing that the officers did not conduct a thorough investigation. This ruling was based on the fact that Long was not going to testify; his statements to the officers, therefore, were inadmissible hearsay. Those statements, however, explained why Schwerb and Chambers did not talk to any other witnesses. Accordingly, defense counsel might have given an unfair impression to the jury by arguing that the investigation was not thorough, because the Government had no means to rebut such an assertion with Long's statements. Before the second trial, the Government renewed all of its motions in limine, and the district court adopted its earlier rulings. Beck now argues that the district court erred by granting the Government's motion regarding the thoroughness of the investigation. But because Long testified at the second trial, the Government's concerns underpinning that ruling were rendered mootBeck could argue that the officers conducted a superficial investigation, and the Government could respond to that assertion with Long's testimony about what he told the officers. Beck clearly recognized this, because the record is replete with instances in which he injected the alleged lack of thoroughness of the investigation into the trial, including during closing argument. Accordingly, while the district court may have granted the Government's motion in limine on this issue, that ruling ultimately did not impair Beck's defense in any way. We perceive no error, let alone a reversible one.