Opinion ID: 789452
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Arguments and the Ruling on Admissibility

Text: 22 The government argued that it was entitled to rebut the assertions made by counsel in his opening statement and on cross-examination with proffer statements by Johnson admitting that he routinely sold crack at 215 Schaefer Street in 2001. In response, defense counsel conceded that Johnson admitted that ... he sold crack out of 215 Schaffer [sic] Street. Id. at 156. But, [h]e did not admit, my recollection is, that he sold on any of the occasions presently charged in the indictment.... Id. The government submitted that counsel's distinction was disingenuous because at the time of the proffer statements, Johnson had the complaint, which charged specifically the dates and in detail the transactions that occurred at 215 Schaffer [sic] Street. He also had the indictment, which charged him on the specific dates that we are now hearing testimony about. Id. at 157. In any event, the government argued that one statement by Barrow could fairly be construed as an admission to the charged April 19, 2001 crack sale. 23 Johnson related that [Leotha] Barrow was responsible for Johnson's arrest. Johnson recalled that Carvin Skidmore called Barrow asking for ten bags of crack cocaine. Since Barrow did not have the ten bags he sent Skidmore to Johnson who sold Skidmore the crack. If — the government will argue on summation that specific reference relates to the April 19th sale, which the undercover already testified about and [defense counsel] Mr. Lind elicited on cross-examination I believe from Detective Rodriguez, that Carvin Skidmore made a call that day to purchase ten bags of crack cocaine, that when the [undercover] arrived at 215 Schaffer [sic] that undercover asked, hey, we are looking for Petey, which is the codefenda[n]t, Barrow's, nickname. Instead, Johnson sold the crack to both Mr. Skidmore and the undercover officer. That's a specific reference to the sale here, Your Honor. 24 Id. at 158. 25 The district court ruled that defense counsel's assertions were fairly rebutted by evidence of Johnson's proffer statements that he sold crack cocaine from that location during the same period of time, although the court advised defense counsel that he could certainly argue to the jury that the admissions did not relate to the specific dates charged in the indictment. Id. at 160. 4 26