Opinion ID: 3133677
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Testimony Regarding Beliveau’s Track Record

Text: Addison first takes issue with a statement made by Agent Beliveau during defense counsel’s cross-examination. Specifically, Beliveau testified that he has “never … prosecuted the wrong person.” The relevant portion of the transcript reads as follows, with the challenged statement in italics: Q. One of the things, of course, that you are trained in is the importance of being accu- rate in the information that you take down and later relay. Is that a fair statement? A. Accuracy? You want to be accurate, yes. Q. Because if you are not accurate, it could lead to the prosecution of the wrong person? 6 No. 14–2515 A. I guess if you are very inaccurate it could lead to the prosecution of the wrong person. Q. That would be a yes then, wouldn’t it? A. Not necessarily. Q. It couldn’t happen? A. It has never happened before. I have never been inaccurate and prosecuted the wrong per- son. Q. Okay. You have never been inaccurate? A. To the point where it has prosecuted the wrong person, no, I have not. Have I made mistakes? Absolutely. Q. Because, of course, when you decide to prosecute somebody, in your opinion you have the right person? A. In all honesty, we present the case to the State’s Attorney and they decide if we have the evidence to prosecute a person…. Q. But you first make the determination that you believe you have the right person? A. Sure. Even assuming the trial court erred by allowing Beliveau to testify about his track record, the error was invited by defense counsel. “It is well-settled that where error is invited, not even plain error permits reversal.” United States v. Fulford, 980 F.2d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir. 1992). Here, it was Addison’s counsel, not Beliveau, who introduced the idea of prosecuting the wrong person. Initially, Beliveau answered unobjectionably, saying he guessed it was possible to make such a mistake. Defense counsel could have moved on at that point, No. 14–2515 7 but instead he pushed further, apparently hoping to get a more damaging admission. He goaded the witness with an open-ended question (“It couldn’t happen?”), not knowing what the answer would be. Addison now argues that the answer he received exceeded the scope of the question. He claims that defense counsel was asking only about the importance of being accurate generally, not about Beliveau’s own track record. That is splitting hairs. Beliveau responded naturally and foreseeably by drawing on and referring to his own experience. He may not have given the response defense counsel was looking for, but that is one of the dangers of cross-examination. Moreover, defense counsel’s line of questioning was purposeful; it was part of a strategy to challenge the evidence against Addison. During cross-examination, for example, counsel challenged Beliveau about how many of the handto-hand transactions he and his agents observed were conducted by Addison himself. Counsel also questioned whether the agents could see from across the street “what, if any kind of drug, [was] in the hand of the person involved in the transaction.” Defense counsel later adverted back to Beliveau’s testimony during closing argument: Do you recall the Government’s first witness, Master Sgt. Beliveau, and recall when I would ask him a question, a question that could be answered with a simple yes or no? It got to the point where I felt like if I had said Master Sgt. Beliveau, is it still sunny outside, he would say no, it is cloudy, and that proves that your client possessed crack cocaine. Look at how somebody is holding their hand. That means they have crack cocaine. Only possible ex- planation. Have we ever prosecuted an innocent 8 No. 14–2515 person? Oh, no, we couldn’t do that, couldn’t hap- pen. In short, defense counsel opened the door to Beliveau’s testimony about his track record and then relied on that testimony in closing to point out the alleged weakness of the government’s case. It is not our job to rescue Addison from the consequences of that strategic choice. See id. (holding that trial court “did not commit reversible error by failing to rescue Fulford from his questionable strategy of introducing such tangential evidence”); United States v. Hall, 109 F.3d 1227, 1231 (7th Cir. 1997) (holding that defendant had “no ground for objection” to evidence of gang affiliation where “it was his counsel that brought out the gang affiliation testimony”). Any error was invited.