Opinion ID: 796719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tonya Hyles's Indictment

Text: 47 Lastly, Cannon argues that the district court erred by excluding evidence showing that the government had dismissed Tonya Hyles's indictment. We review for clear abuse of discretion a district court's evidentiary rulings. United States v. Chase, 451 F.3d 474, 479 (8th Cir.2006). We will reverse a conviction only when an improper evidentiary ruling has affected substantial rights or had more than a slight effect on the verdict. United States v. Naiden, 424 F.3d 718, 722 (8th Cir.2005). 48 Cannon argues that the evidence in the government's criminal file on Tonya is relevant to demonstrate the inconsistency of proceeding under the same evidence against Mr. Cannon, where such evidence could not sustain an indictment against Tonya. This ignores the fact, however, that the indictment against Tonya was dismissed without prejudice because she was expected to be a cooperating witness in Cannon's trial. Her name was on the witness list the government filed, and during discovery Cannon received statements made by Tonya, as well as her proffer letter. The government dropped her from its witness list, however, because she was no longer willing to cooperate. After Cannon's trial, the government again indicted her. Thus, as the government argues, evidence of the dismissal of her indictment would have been misleading and was properly excluded. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. 49 Cannon's constitutional arguments are also without merit. Contrary to Cannon's argument, sharing information with the jury about a co-conspirator's charges or lack thereof creates the potential denial of a fair trial, not the contrary. Cf. United States v. Barrientos, 758 F.2d 1152, 1155 (7th Cir.1985) (Information regarding the reason for a co-defendant's absence is irrelevant to [the jury's] task. It only adds grist to the mills of speculation for the jurors to know that one defendant has admitted to guilt or that another has been found not guilty.).