Opinion ID: 778749
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Discovery and Evidentiary Contentions

Text: 69 Campbell also contends that his right to present a defense was violated by the district court's exclusion of the deposition of Campbell's brother and its denial of Campbell's request to take additional depositions; and that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and by the court's refusal to allow Campbell to sit in the audience during in-court identifications. We see no basis for reversal. 70 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further depositions, see, e.g., United States v. Johnpoll, 739 F.2d 702, 708 (2d Cir.) (decisions on whether to allow depositions are within district court's discretion), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1075, 105 S.Ct. 571, 83 L.Ed.2d 511 (1984), because Campbell did not show that the testimony of his proposed deponents was material or that the witnesses would be unavailable to testify at trial. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in excluding the deposition of Campbell's brother, given that he attended the trial on the day the defense case began and thus could have been called to testify in person. 71 Nor is there merit in Campbell's challenge to the admission of uncharged crimes. Evidence of other similar crimes by a defendant is admissible under Fed. R.Evid. 404(b) to prove the identity of the defendant as the person who committed the offense being prosecuted, and the decision whether to admit or exclude such evidence is committed to the discretion of the trial court, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 33 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 885, 121 S.Ct. 203, 148 L.Ed.2d 142 (2000). Campbell's fundamental position in this prosecution was that he did not participate in the robberies and that he was not George Campbell or Roland Campbell but instead was Orlando David Campbell Allen. We see no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to admit evidence of similar crimes with which Campbell was connected in order to refute his contention that the government was now prosecuting the wrong man. 72 It was also well within the trial court's discretion in this case to reject Campbell's request to be seated in the audience during the in-court identifications. Although suggestive settings in the courtroom are generally to be avoided where the defendant has properly raised the issue, see, e.g., United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938, 942-43, modified, 756 F.2d 223 (2d Cir.1984) (imposing conditions precedent to any requirement of special identification procedures), in the present case the court was required to weigh the possibility of suggestiveness against the possibility that Campbell might attempt to escape. The court consulted the United States Marshals with respect to the security risks that would be posed by having Campbell mingle with the audience and concluded that those risks outweighed the danger of suggestiveness. We see no abuse of discretion in this conclusion. Campbell had a history of escape from custody. And none of the in-court identifications were to be made by persons who had had only fleeting glimpses of Campbell; rather, most of the identifying witnesses were Campbell's former coconspirators or girlfriends. The court properly balanced the competing interests.