Opinion ID: 1286730
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rulings on Cross-Examination

Text: Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion and violated his rights to confront witnesses and present a defense by initially disallowing cross-examination into whether the detectives searched the wooded path and, in fact, found the gun there. The right to confront witnesses is violated when a defendant is prohibited from engaging in otherwise appropriate cross-examination designed . . . `to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors ... could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 680, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974)). [T]he main and essential purpose of confrontation is to secure for the opponent the opportunity of cross-examination. Id. at 678, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Here, the district court reconsidered its initial ruling on the morning of the second day of trial and stated that it would permit reopened cross-examination into the subjects that defense counsel wished to explore. All three detectives were available to re-take the stand. Thus, defendant was afforded the opportunity of cross-examination guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause. See United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 956 (2d Cir. 1990) (finding no Confrontation Clause violation and no abuse of discretion in trial court's ruling prohibiting the defense from referring in cross-examination to cassette tapes made by FBI agents during surveillance, where the court did not adhere to this ruling but instead permit[ted] cross-examination on a wide variety of topics . . . including the use and reuse of [the] cassettes). Nevertheless, Padilla opted to recall only Det. O'Brien, who testified that he did not search the path and did not know if anyone else did. Defendant thereby waived the opportunity to confront the other two detectives on these subjects. Assuming arguendo that the initial ruling was an abuse of discretion, it was harmless. The assumed error is a misapplication of an evidentiary rule and, as discussed above, not a violation of the Confrontation Clause. Therefore, we apply the harmless error standard enunciated in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). See United States v. Estrada, 430 F.3d 606, 622 (2d Cir.2005). Under this standard, the error is deemed harmless if there is `fair assurance' that the jury's `judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.' Id. (quoting United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 121 (2d Cir.2003)). The trial court did not, as defendant claims, impermissibly preclude him from presenting his theory of defense. See United States v. Reindeau, 947 F.2d 32, 36 (1991) (holding that such an error is not harmless). The net effect of the court's rulings was that defendant had to wait until the next day to ask the questions he wanted. In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which consisted of three eyewitnesses and a full confession, we are confident that the overnight delay did not substantially influence the verdict. Padilla argues that the later ruling did not remedy the error because, by initially sustaining the government's objections to his questions about whether police searched the path, the court utterly delegitimized all defense inquiries on that subject in the eyes of the jury. (Appellant's Br. at 47.) Yet Padilla himself denied the later ruling its full curative effect when he decided not to reopen cross-examination of two of the three detectives. He cannot complain now of self-inflicted harm. He also failed to request that the jury be instructed not to draw an improper inference from the court's initial ruling. In any event, any residual prejudice from that initial ruling could not have affected the verdict, given the strength of the government's case.