Opinion ID: 3016722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cross-examination of James Lockwood

Text: Benjamin contends that the District Court erred when it refused to let him crossexamine government witness James Lockwood regarding personal financial difficulties Lockwood had in 1989. Lockwood had been Benjamin’s civilian supervisor, and it was he who explained to the jury the process that led to the discovery that the government was paying for an unnecessary T-1 line that was supporting Benjamin’s pornographic web site. Benjamin sought to impeach Lockwood on cross-examination with “reverse Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)” evidence that, in 1988 and 1989, Lockwood had experienced personal 4 financial difficulties and borrowed money from two subordinates. Defense counsel suggested that this evidence was relevant because it was against regulations to borrow money from an inferior and because the financial “motive” extended to the time of the indictment, ten years later. But this lapse in time itself undermines the notion that the District Court abused its discretion in excluding this evidence. At all events, considerations such as undue waste of time and confusion of the issues under Rule 403 made the exclusion reasonable; additionally, any error resulting from the exclusion would have been harmless because the evidence against Benjamin was overwhelming.