Opinion ID: 760497
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Exclusion of the Defendant's Proffered Evidence

Text: 26 The defendant next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit evidence that would serve to demonstrate that the directions which Krankel had given to the hit man Koehler to assist him in locating Hamblin's house were inaccurate. Krankel intended to present the testimony of a witness who attempted to follow the directions, but was unable to locate Hamblin's house. Thus, Krankel planned to demonstrate that he was not serious about having Hamblin killed and had given the false directions to the hit man Koehler on purpose. The trial judge refused to allow the testimony of the witness who had attempted to follow Krankel's misdirections to Hamblin's house, ruling that such evidence was irrelevant. 27 This Court has repeatedly stressed that [t]he trial court has broad discretion to determine the admissibility of evidence and will be reversed only upon a clear showing of abuse of discretion. United States v. Pulido, 69 F.3d 192, 201 (7th Cir.1995) (citation and internal quotations omitted). The Pulido court continued: Appellants who challenge evidentiary rulings of the district court are like rich men who wish to enter the Kingdom; their prospects compare with those of camels who wish to pass through the eye of a needle. Id. (citation and internal quotation omitted). Thus, in reviewing the trial court's ruling, we must be highly deferential. 28 A charge of conspiracy requires only that the Government establish a participatory link between the conspiracy and the defendant. To establish that participatory link, the Government must offer sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the defendant knew of the conspiracy and that he intended to join and associate himself with its criminal design and purpose. United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173, 1200 (7th Cir.1997) (citation and internal quotation omitted). Pursuant to our holding in Pulido, we defer to the discretion of the trial court and hold that the accuracy of Krankel's directions is collateral at best to the Government's proof, under Magana, that the defendant knew of the conspiracy and that he intended to join and associate himself with its criminal design and purpose. Id. As this evidence does not tend to prove or disprove an element of the crime charged, the district court judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding it.