Opinion ID: 785474
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Vouching Testimony by a Government Witness

Text: 80 Finally, Wilkerson argues that he is entitled to a new trial because Judge Block should have prevented one of the police detectives who testified on behalf of the Government from improperly vouching for Toney's credibility. See United States v. Forrester, 60 F.3d 52, 63 (2d Cir.1995) (the credibility of witnesses is exclusively for the determination by the jury, and witnesses may not opine as to the credibility of the testimony of other witnesses at the trial (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because we find that the detective merely identified the matters that Toney had testified about that were not contained in any police reports, we conclude that this argument, too, is devoid of merit. 81 During her cross examination of Toney, Wilkerson's counsel challenged him with respect to how he had learned of the particulars of Wilkerson's case. She suggested that Toney had reviewed Wilkerson's big stack of legal papers, cases[,] and police reports in [Wilkerson's] cell, or in the law library. Toney denied that he had done so. Counsel then asked if Wilkerson had shown Toney the police reports, which Toney denied. 82 To rebut defense counsel's suggestion that Toney had learned of Wilkerson's case by reading police reports (instead of from Wilkerson's confession), the Government sought to offer the testimony of the case detective to demonstrate that Toney had testified about matters that were not contained in any police reports. Judge Block agreed that defense counsel had suggested this and, over defense counsel's objection, agreed to allow some limited questioning. According to the case detective, Toney testified to the following subjects that were not mentioned in the police reports: (i) that there had been a plumbing dispute between Wilkerson and Bilberto; (ii) that Wilkerson pulled up in front of a fire hydrant and saw Ligon in the window; (iii) that Duffy ran away from the crime scene; (iv) that Wilkerson provided two names at the police precinct; (v) that Wilkerson complained to Duffy about a statement of Duffy's implicating Wilkerson; and (vi) that Wilkerson grew up with Duffy. 83 As the testimony summarized above indicates, the case detective never directly or indirectly expressed an opinion about Toney's credibility. Nor did the detective opine about whether Toney's testimony was accurate or whether the information contained in the police reports was accurate. Rather, the detective merely pointed out the information provided by Toney that was not in the police reports, and the admission of the detective's testimony in that respect was entirely proper. As Judge Block explained in overruling defense counsel's objection: 84 [A]n important issue is where did Toney get this knowledge[;] did he get all this information from Wilkerson or could he have gotten that information from some other sources and certainly I think [the detective's] testimony is relevant testimony in order to elicit for the jury where this information may have come from. I can't think of anything more relevant. 85 Accordingly, we reject Wilkerson's argument that the detective's testimony constituted improper vouching and that Judge Block should have excluded it.