Opinion ID: 688675
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: admissibility of exculpatory evidence.

Text: 15 At trial, Ms. Peet attempted to present a defense that, at most, she had laundered money for Mr. Day so that he could support his lavish lifestyle. She subpoenaed Lavaughn Newsom and Gary Doud who were prepared to testify that they also had cashed third-party checks for Mr. Day, but that no cocaine had been involved. The district court refused to allow the testimony on the ground that it was not material. 1 Ms. Peet asserts that the court's ruling violated the Sixth Amendment by prohibiting her from presenting a defense. 16 Evidentiary rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Temple, 862 F.2d 821, 822 (10th Cir.1988). To establish a Sixth Amendment violation, Ms. Peet must show that the proffered testimony was material and favorable to her defense. 2 United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982). 17 First, the appellant argues that Mr. Newsom's and Mr. Doud's testimony was material and favorable to her defense because it would have impugned Mr. Day's credibility. If offered for that purpose, however, it was merely cumulative of other evidence showing that Mr. Day was a liar, forger, thief, gambler, drug abuser and drunk. Refusal to admit cumulative evidence under these circumstances does not violate the Sixth Amendment. United States v. Swingler, 758 F.2d 477, 497-98 (10th Cir.1985). 18 Second, the appellant asserts that the testimony should have been admitted pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 406 as evidence of Mr. Day's habits. However, stealing money through check forgery is not a semi-automatic act; thus it does not constitute a habit under the rule. 3 Cf. United States v. Troutman, 814 F.2d 1428, 1455 (10th Cir.1987) (extortion or refraining from extortion does not constitute habit). 19 Finally, the appellant argues that the fact that Messrs. Newsom and Doud had cashed checks for Mr. Day without exchanging drugs is relevant to show that no drugs were involved in the Fairchild/Peet check-cashing scheme. The check cashing by Mr. Newsom and Mr. Doud occurred at different times and involved different checks from those charged in the indictment. Further, the government maintains that some of the transactions between Mr. Day and Mr. Newsom did involve cocaine. In fact, Mr. Doud and Mr. Newsom were under government investigation at the time of trial. 20 The district court has wide discretion to limit testimony that is collateral to the issues charged in the indictment. United States v. Scopo, 861 F.2d 339, 345 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1048 (1989). We conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to exclude Mr. Doud's and Mr. Newsom's testimony on the ground that it was not material, nor did that ruling violate the Sixth Amendment. 21