Opinion ID: 3156439
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Officer Jones’s Testimony

Text: Mr. Brown next argues that the district court erred by permitting DEA Task Force Officer (TFO) Eric Jones to testify concerning Djuane Sykes’s credibility. At trial, the following exchange occurred between Mr. Brown’s counsel (Mr. Kjorlie) and the TFO: Q.[Mr. Kjorlie] You heard Mr. Sykes testify during the -- in front of the jury, correct? A. Correct. Q. Are there any things there that he said that you felt might not be correct? MS. MOREHEAD [government’s attorney]: Judge, I’m going to object. He’s asking this witness to pass on the credibility of Mr. Sykes. MR. KJORLIE: Well, I’m saying is there anything that he said that does not correspond with his knowledge as the case investigator. MS. MOREHEAD: I’ll withdraw the objection, Judge. I think what he’s asking is if he told the truth or not. I’ll not object. MR. KJORLIE: I was sloppy. Sorry about that. A. Sir, I think Mr. Sykes, along with a couple of other individuals that will be testifying here are two of the most -- MR. CORNWELL [co-defendant Kyle Stephen’s counsel]: I’m going to object to that, Judge, that does invade the province of the jury. So if he wants to talk about Sykes he doesn’t touch me, that’s fine but if he’s going to talk about somebody else that’s going to come up, I’m going on object. MS. MOREHEAD: I don’t know. Mr. Cornwell I -- guess can he object to defense? I guess. I don’t know. But he asked the question, Judge, that’s why I withdrew my objection. THE COURT: Would you rephrase the question? Are you only asking about Sykes? MR. KJORLIE: Yeah. Q. (By Mr. Kjorlie) I’m just asking about Mr. Sykes. THE COURT: And whether he has an opinion that Mr. Sykes was making statements that were inconsistent with what he had found in -6- his investigation? MR. KJORLIE: Correct. THE COURT: Okay. You can answer. A. No, sir. I think Mr. Sykes was exceptionally credible. Q. (By Mr. Kjorlie) Now, this area of credibility, I guess we’re not going to make that decision, the jury’s going to make it, correct? A. (No response.) Q. Right? A. Ultimately it is up to them, yes, sir. 4 R. 2176–78. Mr. Brown now objects to the TFOs testimony, arguing that the district court improperly allowed him to vouch for Sykes, preventing the jury from making its own credibility determinations. The invited-error doctrine precludes this objection. 2 Here, counsel elicited the testimony from the TFO over objection from the other counsel, and also clarified (during the questioning) that credibility was the jury’s province. The invited error doctrine prevents “a party from arguing that the district court erred in adopting a proposition that the party had urged the district court to adopt.” United States v. Deberry, 430 F.3d 1294, 1302 (10th Cir. 2005). Therefore, even assuming arguendo that permitting the TFO to speak to Sykes’s credibility was error, Mr. Brown, as the party who induced the alleged error, cannot seek to set it aside on appeal. See United States v. Burson, 952 F.2d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir. 1991). As a strategic decision, counsel asked a question and received an answer. 2 The government argues in the alternative that Mr. Brown’s argument on this claim also fails under plain error review. Aplee. Br. 28–29. Because the issue is easily resolved under the government’s first theory of invited error, we need not address plain error. -7- Mr. Brown cannot now object because the answer was different than expected or desired. Whatever counsel’s strategy, we will not consider the error on appeal. Mr. Brown’s reliance on our decisions in United States v. Hill, 749 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2014), and United States v. Charley, 189 F.3d 1251 (10th Cir. 1999), is misplaced. In both Hill and Charley, the government elicited the testimony on credibility and the defendant objected. Hill, 749 F.3d at 1256–57; Charley, 189 F.3d at 1261. In contrast, Mr. Brown, through counsel, both elicited the testimony and now objects to it.