Opinion ID: 564390
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross-Examination of Photospread Officer

Text: 30 During the cross-examination of the officer who conducted the photospread identification, the defense inquired into the potential suggestiveness of photo identifications. Defense counsel then attempted to inquire into the concept of photo induced identification, but the court sustained the government's objection to the questioning. Perkins cites this ruling as error. The district court's decision as to the scope of cross-examination is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Bonanno, 852 F.2d 434, 439 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 812, 102 L.Ed.2d 801 (1989). 31 The district court did not abuse its discretion in restricting the cross-examination of this witness. First, the questions extended beyond the witness's area of expertise, which was in the presentation of photospreads. Second, the district court, before trial, properly refused to allow expert testimony on the topic of induced identification. See United States v. Christophe, 833 F.2d 1296, 1299-1300 (9th Cir.1987) (Skillful cross examination of eyewitnesses, coupled with appeals to the experience and common sense of jurors, will sufficiently alert jurors to specific conditions that render a particular eyewitness identification unreliable.). Perkins cannot evade this ruling by attempting to elicit expert testimony from a non-expert. Perkins had ample opportunity to, and did, cross-examine Alamond on his eyewitness identification, as well as argue to the jury his theory of induced identification.