Opinion ID: 1236530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ross's Testimony Regarding His Personal Bankruptcy Petition

Text: During direct examination, Ross testified that he filed a petition for personal bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. He testified that all the loans and people that [he] owed were put into the bankruptcy.... On cross examination, it was elicited that Ross listed some creditors related to his failed modular housing plan but failed to list others. Ross's redirect testimony explained that these alleged discrepancies were due to the fact that his bankruptcy was personal, and some of his investors had contracts with his businesses and not with him personally. At trial, Ross's counsel timely objected to the prosecution's cross-examination questions regarding inconsistencies in Ross's bankruptcy petition as improper Rule 404(b) evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts. Ross's attorney argued that the government was attempting to improperly elicit evidence of bankruptcy fraud. The district court overruled the objection and allowed the line of questioning. Ross now renews this claim on appeal. [A] trial judge's evidentiary decisions will not normally be reversed absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion. United States v. Daniels, 948 F.2d 1033, 1035 (6th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Hickey, 917 F.2d 901, 904 (6th Cir.1990)). Ross's argument falls flat. During his direct examination he testified that he listed all of his personal creditors, including friends and family, opening the door for exploration of that statement on cross-examination. Accordingly, the government attempted to elicit on cross-examination that Ross had improperly excluded some personal creditors from his bankruptcy while including others. The government is allowed to impeach any statement made by Ross in his direct examination through cross-examination under Federal Rule of Evidence 607 (The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party ....). This was exactly what occurred at trial. The government's questions were intended to impeach Ross's earlier testimony that he had listed all of his creditors and thus were proper under Rule 607. See Virostek v. Liberty Twp. Police Dep't/Trs., 14 Fed. Appx. 493, 506-07 (6th Cir.2001). Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Ross's objection.