Opinion ID: 2832667
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Triggering the Waiver Provision

Text: Having determined that Shannon did offer evidence when he cross-examined Akhtar, we must now consider whether this evidence was inconsistent with Shannon’s proffer and triggered the waiver provision. Because this is an evidentiary ruling, we review the district’s court decision to admit Shannon’s proffer statement for abuse of discretion. United States v. Henderson, 626 F.3d 326, 333 (6th Cir. 2010). We will not reverse unless an error affects a “substantial right”—that is, if the error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence” on the jury’s verdict. Id. (citation omitted). “[A]n erroneous admission of evidence that does not affect the ‘substantial rights’ of a party is considered harmless, and should be disregarded.” United States v. Whittington, 455 F.3d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Shannon asserts that his cross-examination was aimed at challenging the accuracy and credibility of Akhtar’s testimony. He claims that defense counsel was merely responding to the testimony elicited by the Government from Akhtar and establishing that Akhtar did not have first-hand knowledge about the payments to beneficiaries. The district court, however, concluded that defense counsel’s cross-examination “went too far” and was “problematic.” We agree. While Shannon certainly has the constitutional right to confront and question the witnesses against him, see U.S. Const. amend. VI, “[i]mpeachment of a witness need not be ‘contrary to’ or ‘inconsistent with’ a defendant’s admission of guilt in a bargaining proffer.” Krilich, 159 F.3d at 1025. “Statements are inconsistent only if the truth of one implies the falsity 10 No. 14-1727, United States v. Shannon of the other.” Id. at 1025-26. In Hardwick, the court rejected the defendant’s contention that his questioning on cross-examination was “intended only to impeach the credibility of the Government’s cooperating witnesses and to challenge their recollections of certain events.” Hardwick, 544 F.3d at 571. The court found no error in the district court’s determination that the defendant also attempted to challenge his role in the crimes, contrary to his proffer statements. Id. Accordingly, the court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant’s proffer statements. Id. Similarly, we find that the testimony elicited from Akhtar was not only aimed at questioning his credibility and accuracy, but also at inferring that Shannon did not pay beneficiaries, an inference that is inconsistent with his proffer statements. A review of the trial transcript shows that, Shannon’s counsel elicited from Akhtar the admission that Akhtar lacked first-hand knowledge about the payments: Q [Defense Counsel]: . . . [Y]ou indicated on direct examination that you had knowledge of Mr. Shannon paying patients. You remember that testimony? A [Akhtar]: Yes, sir. Q [Defense Counsel]: Okay. And that’s not firsthand knowledge, correct? You didn’t see Mr.—Mr. Shannon paying any patients, correct? A [Akhtar]: No, sir. (R. 623, Trial Transcript, Pg ID 3801-02). But Shannon’s counsel did not stop there. Subsequent questioning was aimed at eliciting testimony from Akhtar that was inconsistent with Shannon’s proffer—that he did, in fact, pay beneficiaries. Shannon’s counsel attempted to create the inference that Shannon did not pay beneficiaries at all because some of the beneficiaries called Akhtar to complain that Shannon had not paid them: 11 No. 14-1727, United States v. Shannon Q [Defense Counsel]: That was just the rumor going around in the office, correct? A [Akhtar]: No. Q [Defense Counsel]: That wasn’t a rumor? A [Akhtar]: It was not a rumor if patient is calling and asking that Shannon had me sign the paperwork and did not give me the money he promised. Q [Defense Counsel]: Okay. Well, if he didn’t give him the money that he promised, that means he didn’t pay them, correct? A [Akhtar]: That’s why patient was calling, to get the money. Q [Defense Counsel]: Okay. I understand that’s why they were calling, but they weren’t paid, correct? A [Akhtar]: At that time, yes. (Id. at 3802) (emphasis added). Counsel’s questions about the payments were not confined to temporal proximity (i.e., that means he didn’t pay them at that time, correct?); rather, the questioning shows that counsel was attempting to negate the fact that Shannon had ever paid beneficiaries—in contradiction to his proffer. Thus, per the waiver provision, the Government was free to rebut this evidence by introducing Shannon’s proffer statements. We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in so concluding. Shannon also contends that the admission of his proffer statements affected his substantial rights and denied him a fair trial because the “central theme of [his] defense was to challenge his knowledge and culpability of the offenses.” Appellant Br. at 26. Shannon claims that the Government offered little proof that he knew about and intended to participate in the conspiracy, but then “trumpeted” Shannon’s proffer statements in its closing as evidence of Shannon’s guilt. See Appellant Br. at 26-27. Having determined that the district court did not err in admitting Shannon’s proffer statements, we reject this argument. As explained above, it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to conclude that Shannon triggered the waiver 12 No. 14-1727, United States v. Shannon provision of his proffer agreement, thereby allowing the Government to use his proffer statements to rebut the inconsistent evidence that he offered. Shannon, with counsel present, freely stipulated to the conditional use of his statements by signing the proffer agreement, and he has not argued that this waiver was made unknowingly or involuntarily. Accordingly, we conclude that Shannon did offer evidence when he cross-examined Akhtar, and that this testimonial evidence was inconsistent with his proffer. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Shannon’s proffer statements into evidence.