Opinion ID: 1213391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Appellants were Able to Effectively Cross-Examine the Cooperating Witnesses.

Text: Appellants also challenge their conviction on the basis that the destruction of Agent Starkey's notes was a violation of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause. They argue that without Agent Starkey's rough interview notes, they were unable to effectively cross-examine the Government's cooperating witnesses. They contend that the district court erred in not dismissing the indictment or striking the testimonies of the cooperating witnesses. [15] We disagree. The Confrontation Clause requires that a defendant be given an opportunity for effective cross-examination. Murdoch v. Castro, 365 F.3d 699, 704 (9th Cir.2004) (citation omitted). However, it does not guarantee that a defendant has all material that he seeks to impeach a witness. Rather, it guarantees `an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish.' Williams, 291 F.3d at 1191 (quoting Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20, 106 S.Ct. 292, 88 L.Ed.2d 15 (1985)). In Williams, we affirmed the admission of statements even though the government failed to produce rough interview notes. Id. The court rejected a Confrontation Clause challenge because (1) the defendant had a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine [the witness], even without the notes, and (2) had not shown prejudice. Id. Here, Appellants were able to cross-examine all the witnesses. They have made no showing that the notes (1) contained anything exculpatory or (2) would have affected the outcome of the trial. Thus, they have not shown any prejudice due to the destruction of the rough notes, especially where Appellants received Agent Starkey's formal reports, which the record indicates contained all the information in the rough notes. Therefore, we conclude that the district court was not required to dismiss the indictment or strike any testimony, and thus did not abuse its discretion.