Opinion ID: 223257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Law Enforcement Officers

Text: Watson argues that the district court erred in allowing officers Saylor and Getty to testify that they observed a photograph of a handgun on Williams's cell phone and a handgun holster on Watson's person. Watson contends that allowing this testimony deprived him of his constitutional right to confrontation because the officers did not seize and preserve as evidence the holster or the cell phone picture, and without these exhibits to use at trial, he could not effectively cross-examine the officers. According to Watson, the object that Saylor and Getty observed on his person was a cell phone case for his Black-Berry phone, and not a gun holster, and the photo the officers observed on Williams's cell phone was not a photo of the handgun that was later recovered from Watson's residence. The Supreme Court has recognized that Confrontation Clause questions will arise when trial court restrictions on the scope of cross-examination effectively emasculate the right of cross-examination itself. Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 19, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Thus, the Confrontation Clause is violated where, although some cross-examination of a prosecution witness was allowed, the trial court did not permit defense counsel to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors, as the sole triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). No such Confrontation Clause violation occurred here, however, for the trial court did not limit the scope or nature of defense counsel's cross-examination in any way. Id. [T]he cross-examiner is ... permitted to delve into the witness' story to test the witness' perceptions and memory, and is allowed to impeach, i.e., discredit, the witness. Id. at 20, 106 S.Ct. 292 (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 316, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)). It does not follow that the right to cross-examine is denied when a witness testifying about his observations fails to produce as exhibits the objects about which he is testifying. [T]he Confrontation Clause is generally satisfied when the defense is given a full and fair opportunity to probe and expose these infirmities through cross-examination, thereby calling to the attention of the factfinder the reasons for giving scant weight to the witness' testimony. Fensterer, 474 U.S. at 22, 106 S.Ct. 292. At trial, Watson was provided with this opportunity, and he took advantage of it. Defense counsel questioned both officers about their failure to seize or photograph the holster and the cell phone. Additionally, defense counsel elicited testimony from officer Saylor that Watson told him the holster was a BlackBerry case. Defense counsel also questioned Saylor at some length regarding his failure to check whether the handgun recovered inside Watson's residence actually fit in the holster he had observed. Finally, defense counsel interrogated Saylor about the limits of his ability to identify similarities between the handgun in the cell phone picture and the one recovered from Watson's residence. Indeed, on appeal, Watson concedes that he was permitted to put before the jury evidence that, if believed, would have discredited the officers' testimony about the holster and cell phone photograph. The main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination.  Id. at 19-20, 106 S.Ct. 292 (internal quotation marks omitted). [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. Id. Because Watson had an opportunity to effectively cross-examine both officers, we hold that the admission into evidence of Saylor's and Getty's testimony did not offend the Confrontation Clause.