Opinion ID: 304553
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitations on scope of crossexamination.

Text: 12 Anthony claims that the trial judge improperly restricted his right to cross-examine government witnesses. Specifically, he objects to the refusal of the judge to permit inquiry into Cassidy's relationship with one Cliff Guttersrud, the person Anthony claims was responsible for the marijuana-smuggling scheme. 13 The rule in this circuit was recently stated in United States v. Haili, 9 Cir., 1971, 443 F.2d 1295, 1299: 14 The scope of cross-examination is within the discretion of the trial court and limitation will not result in reversal unless it is clear that the defendant was denied his constitutional right of confrontation. Enciso v. United States, 370 F.2d 749 (9th Cir. 1967). 15 The trial judge acted within the scope of his discretion in limiting cross-examination. While the questioning was undoubtedly designed to impeach the witness, the transcript reveals that appellant's counsel began to range too far afield of the issues to be determined by the jury. One duty of the trial court is to limit cross-examination at that point to prevent defense counsel from confusing the jury with a proliferation of details on collateral matters. The judge did not deprive Anthony of his Sixth Amendment rights. 16 4. Allegedly prejudicial behavior of the trial judge. 17 During the trial the presiding judge berated and disparaged Anthony's counsel on several occasions, both in and out of the presence of the jury. 1 Anthony argues (1) that these remarks by the trial judge evidenced a lack of impartiality and suggested to the jury that the defense was without merit, thereby prejudicing Anthony and depriving him of a fair trial, and (2) that the comments intimidated defense counsel and prevented effective representation of Anthony. 18 In a jury trial the judge should exercise caution and restraint to avoid any possibility of prejudicing the defendant in the eyes of the jury by unnecessary criticism of or hostility toward defense counsel. We have carefully examined the transcript of the trial and the comments of the trial judge. 2 Although the judge's remarks were unquestionably improper, 3 we cannot hold that the result of those unfortunate remarks was the creation of an atmosphere so prejudicial as to prevent Anthony from receiving his constitutionally guaranteed fair trial. 19 We arrive at this conclusion for several reasons. First, the judge repeatedly warned the jury that his criticisms of counsel's tactics and abilities had no bearing on the guilt or innocence of the accused and should be ignored. While cautionary instructions of this nature will not always cure the effect of a trial judge's hostile behavior toward defense counsel (see United States v. D'Anna, 2 Cir., 1971, 450 F.2d 1201, 1206, and Bursten v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 395 F.2d 976, 983), the warnings here were given carefully and often and were sufficient to overcome the prejudicial tendency that the judge's remarks undoubtedly had. Carroll v. United States, 9 Cir., 1963, 326 F.2d 72, 83. 20 Second, the trial judge did not confine his caustic rebukes to defense counsel; in fact, the prosecutor was treated more harshly than defense counsel, the judge even suggesting that the prosecutor did not know the most basic rules of questioning a witness or submitting evidence. 4 Given the more or less even-handed application of the judge's improper remarks, we think the jury was unlikely to think that the judge was biased against the defense. 21 Third, all the cases cited by Anthony in which convictions have been reversed on the grounds here asserted involved behavior by the trial judge which interfered more seriously with defense counsel's representation of his client or which more clearly demonstrated a bias against the accused. Compare, for example, Bursten v. United States, supra, and Peckham v. United States, 1953, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 136, 210 F.2d 693, 703-706, cert. denied, 350 U.S. 912, 76 S.Ct. 195, 100 L.Ed. 800. 22 The attitude and behavior of the trial judge here, while involving improper belittling of the prosecutor and defense attorneys, did not quite descend to the level of judicial hostility evident in the cases cited by appellant. This case is similar to those in which, although the comments of the trial judge were inappropriate, we could not say that they impaired the accused's right to a fair trial. See e. g., United States v. Allen, 9 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 712; Duran v. United States, 9 Cir., 1969, 413 F.2d 596, cert. denied, 396 U.S. 917, 90 S.Ct. 239, 24 L. Ed.2d 195; Justice v. United States, 9 Cir., 1969, 407 F.2d 1323, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 916, 89 S.Ct. 1765, 23 L.Ed.2d 230; Robinson v. United States, 9 Cir., 1968, 401 F.2d 248; Carroll v. United States, 9 Cir., 1963, 326 F.2d 72; Smith v. United States, 9 Cir., 1962, 305 F.2d 197, cert. denied, Corey v. United States, 371 U.S. 890, 83 S.Ct. 189, 190, 9 L.Ed.2d 124. 5 23 Neither do we believe that defense counsel was so intimidated by remarks of the trial judge that he thereby failed adequately to represent his client. On the contrary, the record reveals forceful advocacy by the appellant's attorney in spite of the judge's rebukes. Compare the situation here with that in United States v. Davis, 10 Cir., 1971, 442 F.2d 72, 74-78.B. Michael Carrion's appeal. 24 1. Sufficiency of the evidence. 25 Michael's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is without merit. In addition to substantial circumstantial evidence indicating his involvement in the conspiracy, the testimony of the two unindicted co-conspirators, Ponting and Cassidy, directly implicated him in the conspiracy. 26 2. Limitations on cross-examination. 27 Although the trial judge did not interfere with the cross-examination of government witnesses by Michael's attorney, Michael argues that he can take advantage of the trial court's erroneous limitations on cross-examination by Anthony's counsel. However, we have already concluded that the actions of the trial judge in restricting questioning by Anthony's attorney was not error. This reasoning applies, a fortiori, to Michael. 28 Affirmed.