Opinion ID: 790329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-examination of Allen

Text: 26 Defendants' next argument centers on the limits placed on their cross-examination of Allen. According to defendants, the district court viewed the cross-examination of Allen as an exercise in futility and a waste of time and imposed blunt-edged, arbitrary limits on defense cross-examination by forcing defendants to accept the cross-examination of [Allen] by one defense lawyer. Def.'s Joint Brief at 17. Specifically, defendants assail the district court for limiting their cross-examination of Allen with regard to two handwritten letters he sent to the prosecutor prior to his sentencing and prior to his testimony in the instant case. In the letters, Allen assures the prosecutor that he is not a bad person, that he is riding with the government 100%, and that he knows enough information so that we can make arrangements for [Allen] to go home. He also reminds the prosecutor that he has children that need him and that his mother is sick, and adds that the prosecutor seems like a very nice, understanding woman. The district judge initially permitted Ector's attorney to question Allen about the letters, but sustained a subsequent government objection to questions about the letters because he already had granted Ector's counsel a lot of leeway and the subject [was] completely exhausted. Tr. 1306, 1317-18. Attorneys for Banks, Smith, Keith McGee, Flozell McGee, McKinzie, and King were not permitted to cross-examine Allen about the letters. According to defendants, that ruling by the district court denied them their Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine Allen about his biases and motivations for testifying. In response, the government asserts that the letters were inadmissible hearsay evidence and that even if the letters were not hearsay, any error by the district court was harmless. 27 The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right of a criminal defendant to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The clause protects the criminal defendant's right physically to face those who testify against him, and the right to conduct cross-examination. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 51, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987). The right to cross-examination is not unlimited; trial courts have wide latitude to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). 28 We agree with the defendants that the better practice would have been for the district court to grant each defendant's attorney some leeway to cross-examine Allen on the letters to the prosecutor. Moreover, the government's characterization of the letters as hearsay is inaccurate; the letters are textbook examples of impeachment evidence. However, even if the court's ruling amounted to a violation of the defendants' Confrontation Clause rights, the ruling is subject to harmless error review. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431. The Van Arsdall Court advised courts to consider the following factors when determining whether a Confrontation Clause violation is harmless: the importance of the witness' testimony in the prosecution's case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and of course, the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Id. 29 After an exhaustive review of the record, we are confident that even if the district court erred in not allowing each defendant's attorney to cross-examine Allen about the letters, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Although Allen was an important witness for the prosecution and that militates in favor of defendants, other relevant factors demonstrate that the challenged ruling was harmless. First, the jury was aware of the gist of the letters due to Ector's attorney's cross-examination of Allen. The district court allowed Ector's attorney to ask Allen the following questions about the letters: 30 Q. Well, in this letter, you're saying that you want to do more to help yourself, don't you? 31 A. Exactly. 32 Q. And you're saying that you just want a little time off for cooperating; you say that, don't you? 33 A. Yes, I say that. 34 Q. And you say you want to do it to go home, right? 35 A. Yes. 36 Q. And not do any time, right? 37 A. Yes. 38 Q. And you say, I know you can help me. I'm not asking for anything free. I can earn mine. I just want you to be fair, [that is] why I'm making my effort to earn all the credit I need to go home. You say that, right? 39 A. Yes, I do. 40 Tr. 1257-58. After some argument over government objections, Ector's attorney continued to cross-examine Allen about the letters: 41 Q. And by writing this letter, you're trying to convince [the prosecutor] to help you get a low sentence so you can go home, aren't you? Isn't that your purpose? 42 A. Yes. 43 Q. And you're telling—you tell her in this letter, or it's your feeling at this point that you'll do anything that you can do for the government or for her so that you can go home, isn't that true? 44 A. No, I wouldn't do anything, but I tell the truth as far as cooperating. 45 Q. Well, you talk about setting people up, don't you? 46 A. Yes. 47 Q. You're willing to do that? 48 A. Yes, that's cooperating. That's not doing anything. 49 Q. And you're telling her that you'll try to get other people to work for the government, right, friends and relatives? 50 A. I was explaining to her that I can get someone to do something on my behalf to help me get a reduced sentence. 51 Q. And that you'll work as a [confidential informant] if she lets you out and does that, right? 52 A. Yes. 53 Q. You're really telling her you'd do almost anything to get out of jail, right? 54 A. I'm not telling her I do anything [sic], I'm just letting her know that I cooperate. 55 Q. You tell her that you don't have a limit on what you'd do. You tell her that, don't you? 56 A. Yes. 57 Tr. 1260-61. Thus, even though not every attorney was permitted to cross-examine on the letters, the jury heard about the content of the letters, and Allen admitted that he wrote the letters and acknowledged his motivations for writing them, which casts doubt on defendants' assumption that further questioning on the letters would have had a devastating effect on Allen's credibility. Cf. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 677, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (trial court did not allow any cross-examination of government witness regarding government's dismissal of an unrelated charge in exchange for the witness' cooperation). 58 Second, Allen was extensively cross-examined on bias and motive by each defense attorney. Ector's attorney was the first defense attorney to cross-examine Allen, and he hammered Allen's credibility for approximately three hours. Among other things, he questioned Allen about the following topics: his practice of diluting cocaine to fool customers and increase profits; his 1993 arrest on narcotics charges; his immediate return to dealing drugs in violation of his bond conditions; his cooperation with the government after the 1993 arrest that ultimately resulted in a sentence of 40 months instead of 10 to 15 years; his return to drug dealing about two months after his release from prison in violation of his supervised release; his monthly bribes to a probation officer to avoid the consequences of his dirty urine drops; his bribes to his former employer so that the employer would issue him paychecks and tell his probation officer that he was still working there; his bribes to employees at City Hall in exchange for the transfer of property rights to him; his involvement with the Black Disciples; his trap cars with secret compartments for hiding cocaine; his 1998 arrest on narcotics charges; his immediate cooperation with authorities and his willingness to turn on friends, relatives, and other associates; his deal with the government in which the government would recommend a 20-year sentence in exchange for his cooperation; and the Rule 35 motion filed by the government that could further reduce his sentence depending on his testimony at trial. King's attorney cross-examined Allen about his purchase of two grenade launchers and grenades; the mix that Allen added to dilute cocaine and cheat his customers; his deal with government; and the possibility that he met with the other cooperating defendants in the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) to coordinate their testimony. Keith McGee's attorney asked Allen about the details of his plea agreement and his drug dealing. Counsel for Banks cross-examined Allen on how he laundered his drug money; the property he forfeited as part of his plea agreement; the false monthly reports he submitted under oath to his probation officer; the government's failure to prosecute him for perjury; his defrauding of a local Boys and Girls Club; and the lies that Allen told the government immediately after his arrest. In addition to impeaching Allen on many of the areas already covered by other defense lawyers, Smith's attorney cross-examined Allen about his fights in prison and about the fact that he had met with prosecutor so many times that he was on a first name basis with her. 1 Flozell McGee's attorney peppered Allen with questions about the massive profits he made as a drug dealer; his failure to pay taxes; and the disappearance of all the drug money. As the foregoing summary of Allen's cross-examination demonstrates, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted was considerable and provided defendants with ample opportunity to paint a reasonably complete picture of Allen from which the jury could assess his credibility. 59 Finally, defendants' arguments about the limits placed on cross-examination run headlong into the overall strength of the government's case. The government supported its case with what may be the most powerful and reliable evidence in a drug conspiracy prosecution: tape recordings of numerous phone calls between the defendants that evidenced their extensive involvement in the illegal drug trade. Palmore, Redding, and Tillman all provided testimony at trial that largely corroborated the material aspects of the wiretap evidence and Allen's testimony. Smith took the stand in his own defense and admitted that it was his voice on the tape recordings. As a result, we think that the not-fully-impeached evidence had little or no effect on the reliability of the factfinding process at trial. 60 In sum, due to Ector's cross-examination of Allen on the letters, Allen's admissions about the contents of the letters, the otherwise extensive cross-examination of Allen by all defense attorneys, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case, we doubt that further cross-examination on the letters would have had an appreciable effect on the jury's assessment of Allen's credibility or the outcome of the case and conclude that any error by the district court was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.