Opinion ID: 423909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hit Man Testimony

Text: 52 During cross-examination of Vasiliou, defense counsel asked the witness whether he had mentioned in a prior interview with a federal agent that Chrisanthou and Kynegos had a reputation for being what is known as hit men. The government promptly objected and demanded an offer of proof. When none was forthcoming, the trial judge sustained the government's objection, while also ruling that Chrisanthou's credibility was not subject to collateral attack. 53 Although the trial judge erred in ruling that Chrisanthou's credibility could not be attacked at trial, see Fed.R.Evid. 806, the judge correctly excluded any reference to hit men after counsel was unable to show a good faith basis for that line of questioning. Although counsel may explore certain areas of inquiry in a criminal trial without full knowledge of the answer to anticipated questions, he must, when confronted with a demand for an offer of proof, provide some good faith basis for questioning that alleges adverse facts. Counsel failed to advance any grounds to corroborate the hit man inquiry other than to note that a private investigator hired by the defense suspected that Chrisanthou and Kynegos were thugs. However, the defense could not produce a source or other information to verify its suspicions. The trial judge properly sustained the government's objection. 54 We have considered appellants' remaining claims and find them to be without substantial merit. The convictions on Counts II and V are reversed. The judgments of the district court are affirmed in all other respects.