Opinion ID: 500743
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hospital bills, house payments, car payment, medical bills, utilities.

Text: 8 Q. Anything else? 9 A. No, sir. 10 Q. Did you have a drug habit, Mr Caudill? 11 A. I didn't have a drug habit, but I was using drugs. 12 Q. And you were selling them, too, weren't you? 13 A. I was trying to. 14 Q. So you were selling drugs and you were counterfeiting money. Are you saying that there is no relationship between the fact you were in debt to your suppliers and the fact you were counterfeiting this money? 15 A. Excuse me? 16 Q. Are you saying there is no relationship between the fact you were in debt to your drug suppliers and the fact you counterfeited this money? 17 A. My trying to sell drugs and counterfeit money was a means that I was trying to get out of debt. 18 Q. Was Erika Payne your supplier? 19 A. No, she wasn't. 20 Q. Did she ever supply you with drugs? 21 A. No, she didn't. 22 After this cross-examination was completed, the prosecutor asked for a side bar conference. The following is part of what occurred: 23 MR. WATSON [Assistant U.S. Attorney]: As I mentioned earlier, one of the people that supplied drugs for this man was Mr. Kirby. 24 THE COURT: Yes. 25 MR. HAILE: We object to that. Any possible relevance is outweighed by prejudice. 26 THE COURT: I believe you opened the door on that, Mr. Haile. Overruled. 27 On re-direct examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Watson asked: 28 Now, Mr. Haile asked you about using drugs. Was Mr. Kirby also involved with you in drugs? 29 A. Yes, he was. 30 MR. WATSON: No other questions, Your Honor. 31 Later on in the trial Erika Payne testified for the government and, on cross-examination, the following was put before the jury: 32 Q. [BY MR. HAILE]: Ms. Payne, were you involved in drug sales with Mr. Caudill? 33 A. No, I was not. 34 Q. Not in any way, shape, or form? 35 A. Not in any way. 36 Q. You didn't buy any from him? 37 A. Yes. We got some drugs from him. We didn't buy them. He just gave them to us. 38 Q. I thought you said you weren't involved in it? 39 A. Well I didn't know what you were asking me. 40 Q. He just gave you some? 41 A. Well, we had bought--I don't understand what you're asking for. 42 Q. Did you sell him any or up-front him, or give him any on credit? 43 A. No. I don't sell drugs. 44 Q. That didn't have anything to do with your trip to Michigan, to get drugs? 45 A. No. 46 Q. What kind of drugs did you get from him? 47 A. From who? 48 Q. Mr. Caudill. 49 A. Cocaine. 50 Q. What else? 51 A. Occasional joint. I didn't buy that. 52 Q. You just bought the cocaine? 53 A. Yes. 54 Q. He gave you the--does your guilty plea cover this, too, any drug activity? 55 A. Yes. 56 Q. That is part of the deal? 57 A. Well, I didn't get busted for any drugs. 58 Q. But isn't that part of the deal, that they will forgive all this stuff if you will just cooperate? 59 A. Yes. 60 MR. HAILE: Thank you. No further questions. 61 Again, a side bar conference followed this testimony: 62 MR. WATSON: Your Honor, Mr. Haile asked her about drugs. I anticipate if asked, she would say when she was doing drugs over there, she was doing it with Jimmy, too. 63 THE COURT: Leave that out. 64 MR. COHEN [Assistant U.S. Attorney]: No. What she would say, she saw Jimmy get drugs from Robert. 65 THE COURT: Don't ask that. 66 MR. COHEN: Okay. 67 It is apparent from the record that the trial judge was careful in his handling of the drug issue. Only one brief reference was made. Nonetheless, we find it was error for the trial judge to have allowed the government to pursue this subject. Defense counsel's inquiries on cross-examination were proper, as he was attacking the credibility of a defendant turned government witness. Involvement in other illegal activity such as drugs--which conduct was forgiven by the government in return for cooperation of the witness--properly bears on the credibility of the witness. It does not, however, as the trial judge ruled, open the door to similar inquiries about the defendant. Because the defendant did not testify, his credibility was not an issue. 68 Nevertheless, we find the error to be a harmless one because the inquiry made by the government was very brief, the trial judge allowed no further inquiry, and it was not made part of the government's closing argument. More importantly, however, the case against Kirby was so substantial that we can confidently conclude that this error was harmless as a matter of law. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 69 All of the other persons involved in this criminal episode testified against Kirby and had direct knowledge of his involvement. Additionally, the government gathered damaging evidence when Erika Payne was working undercover for the Treasury agents. Although all of the witnesses were subject to attack on cross-examination as a result of their own wrongdoing and the deals they had cut with the government, their testimony was still believable for the most part and more than adequate to deeply implicate Kirby.