Opinion ID: 550323
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of State Court Indictment

Text: 25 The district judge refused to permit Thorn to introduce evidence of a state court indictment pending against Jamison, the government's key witness. Jamison was under indictment in the 259th District Court of Jones County, Texas for possession of more than 400 grams of a controlled substance. Thorn wished to introduce this evidence to show motive or bias on the part of Jamison to testify in favor of the government. On appeal he claims that the exclusion of this evidence violated his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. Because we find that the district judge did not abuse his discretion by excluding this evidence, we reject Thorn's claim. 26 The Federal Rules of Evidence severely restrict the use of extrinsic evidence to attack the character of a witness. Rule 608(b), however, does allow inquiry into acts other than convictions on cross-examination if probative of the witness' credibility. See United States v. Abadie, 879 F.2d 1260, 1267 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 569, 107 L.Ed.2d 563 (1989). Extrinsic evidence of specific acts of conduct generally is not admissible to attack a witness' responses to this inquiry. Fed.R.Evid. 608(b). 27 An exception to the prohibition against the use of extrinsic evidence to attack the credibility of a witness exists in cases in which the evidence tends to show bias or motive for the witness to testify untruthfully. United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 550 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 781 (1980). Within limits the party challenging the witness is allowed to pursue relevant lines of inquiry aimed at discovering bias. United States v. Hall, 653 F.2d 1002, 1008 (5th Cir.1981). Admission of evidence under Rule 608(b) or its bias exception is in the sound discretion of the district court. 28 Thorn sought to question Jamison concerning the state court indictment and also to offer the indictment in evidence. The district court refused both requests. We review the district judge's ruling on the abuse of discretion standard. United States v. Crumley, 565 F.2d 945, 949 (5th Cir.1978). Under the general mandate of Rule 403, a district judge should exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value. The district judge explicitly held that admission of evidence that Jamison faced serious state drug possession charges would have a highly prejudicial effect on the way the jury viewed his testimony. 29 Thorn surmises that the pending state court indictment gave Jamison a motive to testify favorably for the government with the hope that he might receive some leniency as to his state charges. In United States v. Abadie, 879 F.2d 1260 (5th Cir.1989), we discussed the admissibility of state court indictments in a federal prosecution to show the bias of a witness. Abadie dealt specifically with a Brady challenge to the failure of the government to disclose a state court indictment pending against one of its witnesses. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We determined that there was no Brady violation because the defendant failed to show that the evidence of the state court indictment would have been admissible in the federal proceedings. Abadie, 879 F.2d at 1267. We observed that the defendant had made no showing that the federal prosecutor had any ability to influence the disposition of the state indictment. Like the defendant in Abadie, Thorn has failed to offer any evidence that the government could influence the disposition of the state court proceedings. The existence of a pending state court indictment on charges totally unrelated to the testimony offered in the equity skimming case was not shown to give Jamison a substantial reason to cooperate with the federal prosecution. 30 The trial judge's ruling prevented Thorn from asking specific questions about the state court indictment. Nothing in the record indicates that the judge would have prevented Thorn from questioning Jamison in general terms about the existence of a deal with the prosecution affecting his testimony in the equity skimming case. In his closing argument, Thorn asked the jury to consider the possibility of a deal between the witness and the prosecution but without any evidence of such a deal in the record. In aid of Thorn's concerns, the judge did instruct the jury to consider the testimony of Jamison, an accomplice, with caution. The jury knew that Jamison faced the same charges as Thorn. The jury also heard evidence that Jamison had a poor reputation for truthfulness. Thorn's alleged purpose for wanting this evidence admitted was to bring Jamison's credibility into question. Certainly that message was conveyed to the jury. 31 We find that the district judge properly acted in his discretion in determining that the prejudicial effect of allowing the jury to hear about the state court indictment outweighed its probative value.