Opinion ID: 614603
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chatburn's Testimony

Text: During a pretrial suppression hearing, Chatburn testified that on two occasions King denied injecting waste water into wells at Double C. The district court's order forbade any reference to waste in testimony before the jury. Chatburn testified at trial that on the first occasion he spoke to King about allegations that fluids were being injected. He testified that on the second occasion King denied what had been alleged. King contended in his motion for a new trial, and contends here, that the government unfairly manipulated Chatburn's testimony. He points out that Chatburn testified at trial that King denied injecting fluids, but that King had denied only injecting waste water, leaving open the possibility that he had not denied injecting clean water. Therefore, according to King, Chatburn's testimony gave a false impression to the jury. King's argument is too clever by half. It was King who insisted on the protective order that prevented Chatburn from testifying to what King had actually said. King is now seeking to take unfair advantage of the order by characterizing the good-faith replacement of waste water with fluid in Chatburn's testimony as manipulation. Further, we note that King was not charged in the indictment with lying to Chatburn. Rather, he was charged with lying to Klimes. The purpose of Chatburn's testimony was to show that King injected fluids willfully. Chatburn's testimony was only a small part of the evidence presented to the jury that King acted willfully. If there was any error in presenting Chatburn's testimony (which we hold there was not), it was clearly harmless.