Opinion ID: 608725
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Evidence of Intimidation

Text: 14 At trial the defendants sought to introduce testimony by several witnesses that they had been intimidated by Gary Neal, the U.S. Customs Agent primarily responsible for the case, in an effort to get them to testify for the government. None of the proposed witnesses actually testified for the government. The district court ruled the evidence inadmissible under Rule 403: the proposed evidence bore on the government treatment of non-witnesses. The court found that the evidence was not sufficiently probative of the agent's conduct toward the witnesses who did testify for the prosecution. To permit the introduction of the evidence would cause undue delay and confusion. The district court's weighing of probative value against prejudicial effect is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kessi, 868 F.2d 1097, 1107 (9th Cir.1989). Abuses of discretion require reversal only where the error more likely than not affected the verdict. United States v. Chu Kong Yin, 935 F.2d 990, 994 (9th Cir.1991). 15 Review of the offers of proof made by the defendants reveals that much of the alleged intimidation involved proper investigative techniques. Because much of the proffered evidence failed to show improper behavior by Neal, its probative worth in questioning the credibility of those who were government witnesses was slight. The evidence did not prove that Neal approached the government witnesses in the same manner. Each of the government witnesses was extensively impeached by cross-examination concerning the deals struck with the government for testimony against the defendants. The district court properly noted that the government would be given the opportunity to respond to the evidence by proving Neal's history in conducting investigations and the propriety of his comments to the potential witnesses. The danger of confusing the issues and causing undue delay was substantial. Considering the slight probative worth of the evidence, the court's decision to exclude the evidence under Rule 403 was not an abuse of discretion.