Opinion ID: 728070
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limitation of Cross-Examination Regarding Civil Lawsuit

Text: 39 Morrison also claims that the district judge abused his discretion by sustaining the government's objection to a question by defense counsel about a civil complaint that had been filed against Ms. Glenn. Morrison's lawyer first asked Glenn whether she had ever made false accusations against anyone. After Glenn answered [n]ot to my knowledge counsel asked [i]sn't it a fact that in January of 1991, Simone Davis filed a complaint against you in court in Maryland? Tr. 7/1/92 at 232. At this point the government successfully objected to the question. When Morrison's counsel requested a sidebar conference, the judge refused on the ground that the question was so obviously wrong. Id. 40 The Federal Rules of Evidence expressly prohibit the use of extrinsic evidence of a witness' conduct (except for certain types of criminal convictions) to impeach the witness, but permit inquir[y] into such conduct if, in the discretion of the court, the conduct is probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness. FED.R.EVID. 608(b) (1996). In this case, the district judge evidently sustained the objection on the ground that the mere filing of a complaint is not probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, regardless of whether the allegations in the complaint, if true, would seriously undermine the witness' credibility. This ruling was in no way an abuse of discretion.