Opinion ID: 728795
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Testimony of Assistant United States Attorney

Text: 27 Defendant claims that the district court abused its discretion when it refused to allow defendant to call Mr. Lance Caldwell, an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA), as a witness because the district court did not know how the witness would respond to the Defendant's inquiries. Defendant claims that the AUSA's testimony was relevant to prove the Government's bias and motive for setting defendant up for the crime in the present case. 28 After a recess in the trial, defendant's counsel informed the court that his client wanted to call AUSA Caldwell as a witness. AUSA Caldwell had prosecuted defendant and his co-defendants in Gallagher I and was also present at the time of defendant's arrest on the charge in the present case. Defendant had neither included AUSA Caldwell on his witness list nor served him with a subpoena. However, the AUSA was present in the courtroom listening to the proceedings, and defendant wanted to call him as a witness. 29 The Government objected to defendant calling the AUSA as a witness, arguing that the testimony defendant was intending to elicit from the AUSA was irrelevant. The trial court asked defendant's counsel to make a statement as to what he thought he would elicit from the AUSA as far as the charges in the indictment were concerned. Defendant's counsel responded: 30 We want to know what Mr. Caldwell's feelings are towards David Gallagher. We want to know why Mr. Caldwell was present when Mr. Gallagher was arrested. 31 We want to know if Mr. Caldwell had any part in making that decision to have Mr. Gallagher rearrested. 32 The testimony that defendant wanted to elicit from the AUSA was irrelevant to the charges in the indictment. Therefore, the district court's preclusion of the AUSA's testimony was not erroneous and not an abuse of discretion. See De Anda v. City of Long Beach, 7 F.3d 1418, 1421-22 (9th Cir.1993).