Opinion ID: 795375
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limitation on the Cross-examination of Kahl

Text: 44 The district court's limitation on Defendant's cross-examination of Kahl did not deprive Defendant of a meaningful opportunity to defend himself. The defense theory was that Kahl changed the date of the tip after his WF stock order tickets and phone records established that Defendant could not have tipped Kahl on September 20, 1999. The order tickets showed that Kahl bought WF stock the morning of the 20th before speaking with Defendant. Defendant raises two specific ways in which the district court limited his ability to question Kahl about the discrepancy between the date Kahl gave before the grand jury — September 20, or his birthday — and the date Kahl gave at trial — probably in the days before his birthday. First the district court sustained an objection to a question from defense counsel asking Kahl what date Kahl stated before the grand jury. Second, the district court sustained an objection to defense counsel's attempt to have Kahl to lay a foundation for Kahl's order tickets for his WF stock, which contained the date and time at which Kahl bought WF stock. 45 Both of the district court's rulings were correct legal applications of standard, justifiable rules of evidence, and accordingly, did not deprive Defendant of the right to present a meaningful defense. See Egelhoff, 518 U.S. at 42, 116 S.Ct. 2013. The district court sustained the first objection because the question was repetitive. Defendant's attorney had already asked Kahl this question, and received an honest answer, on seven occasions. The district court sustained the second objection because Kahl had never seen the order tickets. Normally, Kahl's stock broker took care of the details of his stock transactions. Kahl therefore had no personal knowledge of the ticket and was not the proper witness to question about it. Fed.R.Evid. 602. Significantly, Defendant later called a stock broker to testify about the order tickets and was able to introduce the order tickets at that time. 46 Furthermore, Defendant exaggerates the discrepancy between Kahl's grand jury testimony and trial testimony. In reality, any discrepancy was minor and did not truly discredit Kahl's testimony. Defendant cites the following language to emphasize how sure Kahl was of the September 20 date in his grand jury testimony: 47 Q: So is there any doubt in your mind that you were talking to Roger Blackwell on the telephone on your birthday in 1999. 48 A. There is no doubt. 49 (J.A. at 4279.) However, read in context it is clear that the no doubt refers to the fact that the person on the other end of the phone was Defendant and not the date of the conversation. The above quoted question and answer in context read as follows: 50 Q: In addition to that over the years of your friendship with Roger Blackwell, have you spoken with him in person and on the telephone on many occasions. 51 A: Oh, yeah. 52 Q: As a consequence of those discussions with Roger Blackwell, did you learn to recognize his voice? 53 A: Yes. 54 Q: So is there any doubt in your mind that you were talking to Roger Blackwell on the telephone on your birthday in 1999. 55 A. There is no doubt. 56 (J.A. at 4277-78.) Additionally, other comments by Kahl before the grand jury evidence he did not recall details. ( See J.A. at 4279-80 (You, know, this is — I'm trying to re-put this thing together. Because the hard facts I remember well. The rest of it is all fuzz. But I believe he was calling to wish me a happy birthday and started kidding around that I ought to eat more veggie burgers.).) Inasmuch as the district court's limitations on Defendant's cross-examination of Kahl were both proper and harmless, they did not violate Defendant's right to present a meaningful defense. 57