Opinion ID: 758727
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Time Restriction

Text: 33 Having decided each conviction is a false statement crime, we now address the timeliness of their use. Rule 609(b) bars the use of a conviction more than ten years old to impeach a witness unless the court determines, in the interests of justice, that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect. See Fed.R.Evid. 609(b). 34 Doretha Payton's convictions were 13 years old. Hence, the trial court could admit them only after balancing their probative value against their prejudicial effect. A determination that the probative value of the conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect must be made on-the-record and based on specific facts and circumstances. See Fed.R.Evid. 609(b); see also United States v. Mahler, 579 F.2d 730, 734 (2d Cir.1978) (requiring on-the-record findings). After hearing oral argument, the trial judge made several specific findings and put them on the record, including the following: Doretha Payton's credibility was crucial because she would be testifying in direct contradiction to the government's witnesses on the key element of possession of the .38 caliber revolver; the impeachment value of her convictions was substantial; and the government provided defendant with sufficient advance notice of its intent to use these convictions in her cross-examination. 35 Contrary to Payton's assertions, the trial court properly exercised its discretion when making these findings. Even Payton acknowledges his mother's credibility was critical to an acquittal because, if the jury believed her testimony, it could not find he constructively possessed the gun. In addition, the record belies Payton's contention that his mother did not understand the application she falsified and thought she truly qualified for welfare, thereby rendering the convictions irrelevant to her credibility. The centrality of the credibility issue and the impeachment value of the prior convictions are highly relevant factors to a trial court's ultimate determination as to whether the probative value of an old conviction substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect in a current trial. See Zinman, 983 F.2d at 434 (relying heavily upon these factors); United States v. Gilbert, 668 F.2d 94, 97 (2d Cir.1981) (same). We see no error in this regard. III Shirley Little's Heroin Possession 36 On direct examination, Payton claimed he had nothing to hide from police during the night of the search. When asked why he informed police that a .38 caliber revolver might be in the house, he answered that the police told him they were looking for a nine millimeter and he was trying to cooperate: I didn't have anything to hide so I was just being honest. But, in fact, as disclosed in the pretrial suppression hearing in this case, Payton did have something to hide: unlawful narcotics. In the ensuing search, the officers found 17 packets of heroin on the person of Shirley Little, Payton's wife. Little told the officers that Payton had given her the heroin to conceal as the officers entered the house. To impeach the nothing-to-hide testimony, the district court permitted the prosecution to cross-examine Payton about his knowledge of the heroin found on his wife's person. Payton insists such cross-examination was error. A. Probative Value 37 Fed.R.Evid. 403 recognizes that relevance alone does not ensure admissibility since relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The government argues the probative value of the proof of heroin was strong because the evidence bore directly on defendant's credibility. Evidence has probative value if it tends to prove or to disprove a fact in issue. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Here, Payton placed his credibility in issue simply by taking the stand. 38 As the Supreme Court has observed: It is essential ... to the proper functioning of the adversary system that when a defendant takes the stand, the government be permitted proper and effective cross-examination in an attempt to elicit the truth. United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 626-27, 100 S.Ct. 1912, 64 L.Ed.2d 559 (1980). When a defendant offers an innocent explanation he opens the door to questioning into the truth of his testimony, and the government is entitled to attack his credibility on cross-examination. See, e.g., United States v. Beverly, 5 F.3d 633, 640 (2d Cir.1993) (defendant's testimony as to his unfamiliarity with guns opened the door to questioning about his prior possession and use of guns); United States v. Garcia, 936 F.2d 648, 654 (2d Cir.1991) (once [defendant] Dominguez testified that he had no idea that the white powder was cocaine, he opened the door for the Government to impeach his testimony by establishing on cross-examination that he was familiar with and indeed had used cocaine as recently as the day before his arrest). By testifying he had nothing to hide on the night of the search, Payton thereby entitled the government to introduce relevant evidence to impeach his credibility and to show that he was, in fact, hiding something. 39 A defendant has no right to avoid cross-examination into the truth of his direct examination, even as to matters not related to the merits of the charges against him. In Garcia, for example, we allowed cross-examination because of Garcia's [a]ttempt[ ] on direct examination to portray himself as a solid citizen with a stable family life. Id. The government need not offer extrinsic evidence to show that a defendant lied so long as it can point to a good-faith basis for its questions. See generally United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 778-79 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040, 104 S.Ct. 704, 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984). Here, the government plainly had a sufficient good-faith basis for its cross-examination of defendant. B. Prejudicial Impact 40 Whatever the prejudicial impact of this evidence of heroin possession, it did not outweigh the probative value of Payton's testimony on cross-examination. Under our customary standard of review, because the trial judge is in a superior position to evaluate the likely impact of the proffered evidence, we will not overturn his ruling unless he has acted arbitrarily or irrationally or has otherwise abused his discretion. See, e.g., Li v. Canarozzi, 142 F.3d 83, 88 (2d Cir.1998); United States v. Smith, 727 F.2d 214, 220 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Robinson, 560 F.2d 507, 514-15 (2d Cir.1977) (en banc), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 905, 98 S.Ct. 1451, 55 L.Ed.2d 496 (1978); cf. United States v. Wiley, 846 F.2d 150, 156 (2d Cir.1988) (district court may allow redirect examination to rebut false impressions that arise from cross-examination, ... and the scope of such an examination is a matter confided to the district court's discretion); United States v. Finkelstein, 526 F.2d 517, 527 (2d Cir.1975) (same), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 960, 96 S.Ct. 1742, 48 L.Ed.2d 205 (1976). As we explained in Robinson, 41 [b]road discretion must be accorded to the trial judge in such matters for the reason that he is in a superior position to evaluate the impact of the evidence, since he sees the witnesses, defendant, jurors, and counsel, and their mannerisms and reactions.... He is therefore able, on the basis of personal observation, to evaluate the impressions made by witnesses, whereas we must deal with the cold record.... [W]e cannot weigh on appeal, as he could at trial, the intonation and demeanor of the witness[ ].... 42 560 F.2d at 514. 43 Moreover, even were we to think there was a strong prejudicial impact throwing into doubt the trial judge's Rule 403 holding, the error would be harmless in light of the ample evidence establishing Payton's guilt. We do not believe the very limited group of questions posed by the prosecution unfairly prejudiced defendant, viewed in light of the proof at trial as a whole. Further, defendant's own responses minimized the risk of prejudice. He informed the jury that the police never discovered drugs on him and never charged him with any narcotics offenses, and the government never introduced evidence to the contrary. IV Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claim 44 In papers filed September 30, 1996 defendant moved for the appointment of substitute counsel, and his trial counsel, Michael Sheehan, Esq., moved to withdraw as counsel. Both requests cited Payton's lost confidence in Sheehan's representation after the guilty verdict was returned. The district court granted the motion and appointed Brian Stapleton, Esq., to represent Payton during sentencing and on appeal. Payton now asserts his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. In particular, he attacks his trial counsel's decision to elicit information about the robbery and murder of Donald Yazgoor by urging this evidence inflamed the jury and was prejudicial to him. 45 In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 689, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the Supreme Court adopted a strong presumption that trial counsel provides effective assistance. To overcome this presumption, defendant must establish: (1) his counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052; and (2) a reasonable probability that absent such unprofessional performance, the outcome of the proceeding would have been different. See id. at 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Defendant fails to make an adequate showing under either prong. 46 First, counsel's performance was reasonable. In a motion in limine the government notified the court and defense counsel that it intended to elicit limited information about the murder and robbery investigation to provide the jury with a context for Payton's incriminating remarks about possessing a .38 caliber revolver while disavowing knowledge of a nine millimeter. See Gonzalez, 110 F.3d at 942 (affirming the admission of background evidence that helped furnish an understanding for defendants' acts). Defense counsel did not object because, as he noted, he already intended to elicit from the police officers that they were looking for a gun used in a murder in which they believed Payton was involved. This decision was a matter of proper trial strategy stemming from defense counsel's earlier inability to suppress Payton's incriminating statements to the police regarding the .38 caliber firearm. Sheehan's strategy shifted to mitigate the harmful effects of those statements by calling into question the credibility of the officers who testified about them. A reasonable lawyer could think this background evidence would help support Payton's claim that he never made the statements. The evidence potentially provides police with a motive to implicate Payton by fabricating his statements about possessing the .38 caliber firearm, and thereby corner Payton into cooperating with authorities to solve the murder. Because counsel's strategy was reasonable under the circumstances of the case, this tactical decision does not fall below an objective level of competence. See United States v. Vegas, 27 F.3d 773, 777 (2d Cir.1994); United States v. Eisen, 974 F.2d 246, 265 (2d Cir.1992); see also United States v. Kirsh, 54 F.3d 1062, 1071 (2d Cir.1995) (strategic choices made after counsel's thorough evaluation of the facts and law are virtually unchallengeable). 47 Second, defendant fails to establish that absent counsel's tactical move, the outcome of the trial would have been different. As mentioned previously, the prosecution produced sufficient proof to allow the jury to find defendant guilty of the crime charged. We have no reason to believe that, absent the solicitation of limited background information regarding the robbery and murder, Payton would have been acquitted. Hence, Payton fails to overcome the strong presumption that his trial counsel provided effective assistance. 48 V The Government's Appeal From the Downward Departure 49 During sentencing Judge Nevas applied the armed career criminal provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) to Payton's case and accordingly determined Payton's offense level to be 33, his criminal history category to be VI, and the applicable Guidelines range to be 235 to 293 months. Following defendant's requests, the sentencing court indicated its intention to depart downward three levels based on a combination of factors. And, despite the government's opposition, the trial court departed downward to an offense level of 30 with a Guidelines range of 168 to 210 months. It ultimately sentenced Payton to 180 months' imprisonment. A. Sentencing Court's Discretion 50 A district court ordinarily must impose a sentence falling within the range of the applicable Guidelines. Each Guideline carves out a heartland, a set of typical cases embodying the conduct described. See U.S.S.G. ch. I, pt. A, intro. comment. 4(b). Realizing some cases will fall outside the heartland of typical cases, Congress entrusted sentencing courts with discretion to take into account specific characteristics of the offender. Such courts are authorized to depart from the sentencing range set by the Guidelines when a case features aggravating or mitigating circumstances of a kind or degree not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission when it formulated the Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b). But, this discretion is not unfettered. The Guidelines prohibit consideration of several factors that otherwise could make a case atypical, for example, race, sex, national origin, creed, religion and socio-economic status, see U.S.S.G § 5H1.10, lack of guidance as a youth, see id. § 5H1.12, drug and alcohol dependence, see id. § 5H1.4, and economic hardship, see id. § 5K2.12. 51 Apart from these prohibited factors, the Commission did not limit the kinds of factors that could constitute grounds for departure in a truly unusual case. See id. ch. I, pt. A, intro. comment. 4(b); see also Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129, 136-37, 111 S.Ct. 2182, 115 L.Ed.2d 123 (1991) ([T]he Guidelines place essentially no limit on the number of potential factors that may warrant a departure....). Nevertheless, the Guidelines provide guidance in identifying permissible factors, by listing certain factors that are apt to make a case atypical, and then describing those factors as either encouraged or discouraged bases for departure. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 94, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996). 52 A district court's decision to depart from the Guidelines is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Galante, 111 F.3d 1029, 1034 (2d Cir.1997). In particular, the sentencing court's factual findings supporting the existence of a permissible factor on which to base a departure are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e); United States v. Broderson, 67 F.3d 452, 458 (2d Cir.1995). Appellate review also includes determining whether a district court's discretion was guided by an incorrect legal conclusion. See Koon, 518 U.S. at 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035. For example, a district court abuses its discretion when it relies upon an impermissible basis for departure. See id. Whether a factor is a permissible basis for departure is a question of law to which an appellate court need not defer. See id. B. Factors Relied on for Departure 53 In the case at bar, the sentencing court stated: I'm going to find that there are individual factors here that wouldn't warrant a downward departure individually but combined, considered in total, would permit the court to depart downward. (emphasis added). It relied upon a combination of four factors for granting a three-level downward departure: (1) Payton's lack of a positive male role model as a youth; (2) his history of drug abuse and failed treatment; (3) his possible ineligibility for credit arising out of his pretrial detention; and (4) a learning disability that limited his educational opportunities. We address each factor in turn.
54 The Guidelines expressly prohibit a sentencing judge from considering a defendant's lack of guidance as a youth and similar circumstances, which would include lack of a male role model, see U.S.S.G. § 5H1.12, and a defendant's history of drug abuse, see id. § 5H1.4. Because a prohibited factor may never serve as a basis for departure, see Koon, 518 U.S. at 95-96, 116 S.Ct. 2035, defendant concedes the district court's error. 55 The downward departure nonetheless may be upheld on the basis of the other factors cited. When a sentencing court relies on a combination of permissible and impermissible factors to justify a departure, the sentence will be affirmed if an appellate court determines the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent reliance on the impermissible factors. See Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 202-03, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992). We therefore must review the remaining factors to determine whether they alone support the departure.
56 We turn to the third factor--Payton's possible ineligibility for credit for his pretrial detention. Defendant remained in custody from his January 2, 1995 arrest until the return of his guilty verdict on August 8, 1996, for a total of 19 months--nine months in state and ten months in federal custody. Pursuant to statute Payton is guaranteed the right to receive credit for his ten months in federal detention preceding his August 8, 1996 federal conviction. The governing statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 57 Credit for prior custody.--A defendant shall be given credit toward the service of a term of imprisonment for any time he has spent in official detention prior to the date the sentence commences ... as a result of the offense for which the sentence was imposed.... 58 18 U.S.C. § 3585(b). 59 Moreover, Payton may receive credit for his nine months in state custody. The United States Attorney General has the authority to determine the appropriate credit for time spent in official detention under § 3585(b) once a defendant has begun to serve his or her sentence. See United States v. Wilson, 503 U.S. 329, 334, 112 S.Ct. 1351, 117 L.Ed.2d 593 (1992); see also 18 U.S.C. § 4001(b)(1) (vesting control and management of federal prisons in the Attorney General). Specifically, § 3585(b) permits the Attorney General to award credit for time spent in state detention pending trial on subsequently dismissed state charges that arose out of the same incident for which the prisoner was convicted in federal court. See United States v. Moore, 978 F.2d 1029, 1031 (8th Cir.1992) (reversing district court's rejection of Bureau of Prisons' award). The Attorney General delegated this authority to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). See 28 C.F.R. § 0.96 (1997) (The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control, or treatment of persons ... charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States....). Therefore, the BOP could conclude Payton should receive credit for time served in state custody because the initial state charges arose out of the same incident as his federal conviction. 60 The district court at sentencing wrongly assumed Payton would be ineligible for credit. Judge Nevas' concern on this score turns out to have been misplaced, as we have learned subsequent to the date of sentencing. We are advised by a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice dated November 18, 1997 that appellant will receive full credit towards his federal sentence for the 19 months spent in pretrial detention in state and federal custody. Further, under Bureau of Prisons regulation 28 C.F.R. § 523.17(l ), pretrial detainees may be recommended for good time credit for the time spent in pretrial custody. The maximum good time credit a prisoner may receive is 54 days at the end of each year. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1). The letter just referred to informs us that Payton has in fact been awarded 108 days good time credit, the maximum allowable, for his time in pretrial custody. Hence, this factor does not support a downward departure.
61 Having determined the other three factors are not valid grounds on which to base a departure, we need not address the fourth--Payton's learning disability and corresponding loss of educational opportunities. The district court already rejected this final factor, standing alone, as a basis for the departure. As a consequence, we must vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing within the Guidelines range.