Opinion ID: 682072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Limiting of Sheffey's cross-examination of government witnesses.

Text: 18 A defendant must be provided the opportunity to question adverse witnesses in a revocation hearing. Fed.R.Crim.P. 31.1(a)(2)(D); Stephenson, 928 F.2d at 732. Sheffey argues the district court violated his right to due process by limiting his cross-examination of the government's witnesses. 19 Even though Sheffey was prevented from asking questions about the drug habits of Matejka's friends and how much money she made as a police informant, his counsel was afforded the opportunity to confront and cross-examine government witnesses and make inquiries as to their credibility and bias. Sheffey was able to show Matejka had used drugs, was being paid to be an informant, and that she volunteered to become an informant in order to help a drug dependent friend. During the cross-examination of Special Agent McKenna, Sheffey demonstrated that the government had paid Matejka and Special Agent McKenna's knowledge of Matejka's recent drug use was based only on what Matejka told her. Judge Matia was the finder of fact and it was therefore his job, as the finder of fact, to make credibility determinations about the witnesses. Once the district court determined Special Agent McKenna and Matejka were credible witnesses there was no need for testimony about the drug habits of those who were not testifying. Any error committed by the district court in limiting Sheffey's cross-examination after making his credibility determination is at best harmless error. 20