Opinion ID: 1085611
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Limits on Cross-Examination

Text: Defendants complain that the district court impermissibly limited the scope of their cross-examination at trial of Special Agent Robert Lauria and former Cobalt employee Jeffrey Clark. We review their preserved objection with respect to Clark’s testimony for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Treacy, 639 F.3d 32, 42 (2d Cir. 2011), and their unpreserved objection with respect to Lauria for plain error, see United States v. Marcus, 130 S. Ct. at 2164. Under either standard, however, we conclude that the district court did not err. 13 The limits at issue—the district court’s general instruction not to repeat direct testimony on cross-examination, its preclusion of repetitive and argumentative questions to Lauria, and its preclusion of questions to Clark about personal bankruptcies that would only confuse the jury—all fell within the court’s discretion and did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. See United States v. Figueroa, 548 F.3d 222, 227 (2d Cir. 2008) (recognizing district court may place “reasonable limits” on defense cross-examination based on concerns such as harassment, prejudice, confusion of issues, witness safety, or repetitive or irrelevant interrogation (internal quotation marks omitted)).