Opinion ID: 1884723
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination for Bias

Text: McCullough and Williams also argue that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting the cross-examination of Mack Williams on the basis that it was too prejudicial. Specifically, the appellants sought to introduce evidence that suggested that Mack Williams was the actual murderer, and therefore his testimony which implicated the appellants was biased. The Sixth Amendment guarantees to criminal defendants not only the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against them, but also `the right to present evidence that someone else committed the offense for which [he] is on trial.' Boykin 738 A.2d at 773 (citations and internal quotations omitted). However, [a] defendant's right to pursue a particular line of cross-examination is circumscribed by general principles of relevance. Id. (citation omitted). A trial court's ruling on whether certain evidence is relevant or probative is a highly discretionary decision which will be upset on appeal only upon a showing of [abuse of discretion]. Gethers, 684 A.2d at 1271 (quoting Mitchell v. United States, 408 A.2d 1213, 1215 (D.C.1979)). Relevant evidence is that which tends to make the existence or nonexistence of a fact more or less probable than would be the case without that evidence. Winfield, 676 A.2d at 2 (citation omitted). Moreover, the trial court has wide latitude in the control of [the] cross-examination where it did not keep from the jury relevant and important facts bearing on the trustworthiness of crucial information. Springer v. United States, 388 A.2d 846, 855 (D.C.1978) (citations omitted). In this case, appellants argue that the trial court erred when it did not permit the appellants to cross-examine Mack Williams and elicit that he was biased because he had the motive and opportunity to kill Jackson. We disagree with the appellants' contention. A review of the record shows that the trial court permitted considerable questioning of Mack Williams; however, it simply did not permit third-party perpetrator evidence, which we have already concluded was properly excluded. The trial court balanced the probative value of the proffered testimony versus the prejudicial impact, and found that the proffered testimony was really counsels' attempt to introduce negative evidence about Jackson to distract the jury from the guilt or innocence of Williams and McCullough. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the cross examination of Mack Williams on the basis that the prejudicial impact of his cross-examination outweighed its probative value.