Opinion ID: 576697
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of surrebuttal testimony

Text: 86 Finally, Mr. Wright contends that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow him to present surrebuttal testimony in support of his alibi defense. In his case in chief, Mr. Wright and his parents testified that, at approximately the time of the Denver bank robbery, he was at their home in Indianapolis. He also presented evidence that he had received a collect call at their home at 6:07 p.m. from the Grissom Air Force Base home of John and Terri Stout. Mr. Wright claimed that Ms. Stout had made the collect call and that they were involved at the time, but not romantically. Tr. of June 26, 1989 at 774; Tr. of June 27, 1989 at 827. In rebuttal, the government presented the testimony of both Mr. Stout and his former wife, who testified as Terri Lombardo. Both Mr. Stout and Ms. Lombardo testified that Mr. Wright actually placed the collect call to his parents' home on the afternoon of the robbery. Ms. Lombardo also testified that she and Mr. Wright had become close friends as problems developed in her marriage, but she denied having an affair with him. Id. at 910. Ms. Lombardo acknowledged calling Mr. Wright a number of times to discuss her marital problems, but testified that she had never placed a collect call to his parents' residence. 87 Following Ms. Lombardo's testimony, Mr. Wright sought to present surrebuttal in the form of the testimony of his sister, Lori Compton. Ms. Compton would have testified that, shortly after Mr. Wright was arrested in July 1987, Ms. Lombardo indicated that she was in love with Mr. Wright and that she was concerned about him. Tr. of June 28, 1989 at 963. Mr. Wright's counsel contended that the proffered statements would be admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and they are relevant to her bias or her ulterior motive for her statement in July of 1987 which she has continued to adopt through her trial testimony. Id. Asked by the court why Ms. Lombardo's being in love with Mr. Wright would have created bias, defense counsel responded, She was married to John Stout at the time. It gave her a motive to conceal the actual events of May 29th, 1987, as I see them. Id. The court, however, concluded that this theory of bias was not a reasonable inference. Id. Furthermore, the court observed that Ms. Lombardo's testimony about her relationship with Mr. Wright was quite consistent with Mr. Wright's own testimony. Id. at 964. The court therefore refused to allow the proffered surrebuttal. 88 We shall not reverse a trial court's decision regarding the admissibility of surrebuttal testimony unless the trial court abuses its discretion. See United States v. Gaertner, 705 F.2d 210, 217 (7th Cir.1983) (Indeed, great deference is accorded to the discretion and judgment of the trial court when granting and/or denying a party's motion for rebuttal or surrebuttal testimony.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1071, 104 S.Ct. 979, 79 L.Ed.2d 216 (1984). District courts are authorized to exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. Fed.R.Evid. 611(a). 89 There was no abuse of discretion in this case. As did the district court, we see little significant difference between Mr. Wright's and Ms. Lombardo's testimony regarding their relationship. Therefore, assuming arguendo that the proffered testimony would have been admissible, 46 it is indeed speculative whether it would have demonstrated a bias against the defendant. In any event, the jury was aware that Ms. Lombardo and her husband were having marital difficulties during the period just after the robberies; it also was aware that Ms. Lombardo and Mr. Wright were seeing each other socially and talking on the telephone a good deal. Furthermore, during closing arguments, Mr. Wright's counsel told the jury that Ms. Lombardo came up with this story about Jack making a collect call. She came up with it on July 29th, 1987 as a further effort to conceal her relationship with my client and she has clung to that. Tr. of June 28, 1989 at 1012. Therefore, even if the district court did commit error in refusing to admit the statement, the issue was still before the jury and, given the weight of the evidence against the defendant, any error was clearly harmless.