Opinion ID: 170473
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Trial Testimony by Perry

Text: At the second trial Perry, who had not testified at the first trial before the mistrial was declared, stuck to his DEA-6 report (which, as previously noted, contradicted his preliminary-hearing testimony). He testified that the tip did not come from an eyewitness on the bus, but rather from the El Paso station manager, who had relayed information from the bus driver as the bus was leaving El Paso. During cross-examination he acknowledged that he got no information from the driver, explaining, I can't conduct an interview with the bus driver. . . . He can speak a little bit of English, and I can speak a little bit of Spanish, so that's the reason that I didn't speak with him on that night or any other occasion about it. R. Vol. VI at 367. He insisted that his DEA-6 contained no errors on his part. He testified, I did not believe at the time that the report was written that it was false. That's the information that was given to me. That's why it was in that report. Id. at 370. He was more emphatic on redirect: Q: [I]s the information that's in your [DEA-6 report] accurate as it was relayed to you by another person, a third party, the source of information? A: Yes, that is exactly what he told me on May 1st when he made contact with me. Id. at 414-15. On appeal the government has contended in its brief and at oral argument that Perry's trial testimony did not contradict his preliminary-hearing testimony but that he merely provided more complete information at trial.