Opinion ID: 2978738
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lewis (08-5600)

Text: In his appeal, Lewis contends that his right to cross-examine Eck was unduly constrained by rulings made by the district court and by Eck’s invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. We review arguments that evidence was improperly introduced in violation of the Confrontation Clause de novo, United States v. Johnson, 581 F.3d 320, 325 (6th Cir. 2009), and claims that the district court improperly curtailed cross-examination for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Kone, 307 F.3d 430, 436 (6th Cir. 2002). The Sixth Amendment guarantees that any criminal defendant is guaranteed the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. This encompasses a right to cross-examination, the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (1970) (internal quotations omitted). Here, Lewis complains that the district court unfairly limited the scope of his crossexamination of Eck. This right to cross-examination is not boundless, and “trial judges retain wide latitude . . . to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). “The key issue is whether the jury had enough information to assess the defense’s theory of the case despite the limits placed on cross-examination.” United States v. Holden, 557 F.3d 698, 704 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728, 739 (6th Cir. 2000)). Lewis sought to question Eck about the nature of prison life. Because this testimony would go beyond the scope of direct, the district court did not allow this line of questioning, instructing Lewis’s counsel to call Eck during Lewis’s case. Lewis did not indicate that he would ask Eck any questions relating to Eck’s bias. And Lewis was able to and did call Eck during his case. The Confrontation Clause was not violated under these circumstances. United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 7 1344, 1350 (6th Cir. 1993) (rejecting a Confrontation Clause challenge when district court limited questions to scope of direct examination and allowed defendant to call witness himself). Lewis also complains that he was deprived of the opportunity to elicit answers from Eck on cross-examination and in Lewis’s case-in-chief because Eck refused to testify. “[T]he Confrontation Clause guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.” Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20 (1985) (per curiam) (citations omitted). “A defendant’s right to compel testimony yields to a witness’s assertion of his or her Fifth Amendment privilege when the claimed privilege is grounded on a reasonable fear of prosecution.” United States v. Highgate, 521 F.3d 590, 593 (6th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). However, if a witness testifies and then invokes his right against selfincrimination, the Confrontation Clause may be violated. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 419 (1965). This is true even if the witness’s testimony consists only of refusals to answer, because the jury may infer answers to the prosecutor’s questions. See id. In this case, Eck provided testimony – claims that he could not remember the events of the day – for the government. Although the district court explicitly allowed Lewis to inquire into the truthfulness of Eck’s claims of forgetfulness, Lewis did not seek to cross-examine Eck about his answers on direct examination. Instead, during his offer of proof outside the presence of the jury, Lewis’s counsel asked Eck about prison life and protective custody. Eck first invoked his right against self-incrimination when asked questions about how problems are handled in prison. Although this might have made him an unavailable witness had Lewis been cross-examining him before a jury, Eck was not before a jury. Lewis’s questioning (and Eck’s answers) had already been excluded by the district court as beyond the scope of direct. Eck’s invocation of his Fifth 8 Amendment rights during the offer of proof did not interfere with Lewis’s cross-examination; the district court’s ruling as to the scope of cross-examination did. And as explained above, there was no Constitutional error in the district court’s ruling. In any event, because “the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one,” we will not reverse any Confrontation Clause error that is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681; United States v. McGee, 529 F.3d 691, 697 (6th Cir. 2008).3 Here, Eck’s testimony – which denied any memory of the day’s events – provided extremely little, if nothing, to the government’s case. The jury had the benefit of testimony of several eyewitnesses and a video recording of the events that morning made from cameras at multiple locations. Lewis overcame any error by the district court in unduly circumscribing Eck’s cross-examination by calling him as an adverse witness during his case. And any error in allowing Eck’s testimony to stand despite his later invocation of the Fifth Amendment is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, in light of the utter lack of any substance provided in Eck’s testimony during the government’s case. Therefore, we AFFIRM Lewis’s conviction.