Opinion ID: 789837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Lawrence Starkopf

Text: 43 As we noted earlier, attorney Lawrence Starkopf testified in the defense case regarding Ilenfeld's character for truthfulness, opining that Mr. Ilenfeld is not truthful at all. Tr. 538. On cross-examination, the government began to explore Starkopf's familiarity with Della Rose and ultimately asked Starkopf whether he had an opinion as to Della Rose's reputation for truthfulness and honesty within the legal community. Tr. at 542. Della Rose's counsel objected to the question and the court sustained the objection. Tr. 546. Although Starkopf never answered the question, in Della Rose's view the cat was out of the bag at that point and it was perfectly clear to the jury what the Government expected Starkopf to say. Della Rose Br. at 35. Because general evidence of the defendant's character is not admissible in a criminal case unless the defense has opened the door to this subject, see Fed.R.Evid. 404(a); United States v. Bonner, 302 F.3d 776, 781 (7th Cir.2002), Della Rose contends that the improper question and the apparently negative answer the government expected Starkopf to give prejudiced him. 44 We disagree. Whatever opinion Starkopf had about whether Della Rose was honest, and whatever expectation the government had as to what Starkopf would have said, the fact is that Starkopf did not answer the question. Any inference as to Starkopf's opinion derives solely from the fact that the government posed the question to him. But, as in every case, the jury was instructed not to give any evidentiary weight to the questions and statements of attorneys, Tr. 669, and we presume that the jury followed that instruction, e.g. United States v. Eberhart, 388 F.3d 1043, 1050 (7th Cir.2004). As the district court aptly observed, Expectations are not evidence, nor are lawyer's questions ... As there was no prejudicial evidence admitted against Defendant during the cross-examination of Starkopf, Defendant's objection at this point is misplaced. R. 104 at 11.