Opinion ID: 1241994
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Remaining Challenges

Text: The remaining challenges can be disposed of briefly. First, the district court did not commit plain error in denying Albert Bates's motion to sever. There is a presumption in favor of joint conspiracy trials in the federal courts, Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537, 541, 113 S.Ct. 933, 122 L.Ed.2d 317 (1993), and here, Albert Bates has not shown prejudice from the joint trial. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting duplicative questions from defense counsel during voir dire. These were within the court's broad discretion to exclude. United States v. Phibbs, 999 F.2d 1053, 1071-72 (6th Cir. 1993). Third, the district court did nor err in refusing to allow impeachment of Kevin Foster-Bey during cross-examination. The proposed questions regarded his familiarity with the legal system, which had already been brought out in detail. The questions were thus cumulative and within the court's discretion to exclude. United States v. Lloyd, 462 F.3d 510, 516 (6th Cir.2006). Fourth, the district court's rulings on the proposed hearsay testimony of Leroy Plummer were correct. The proposed hearsay statements were not admissible as a statement against interest under Fed. R.Evid. 804(b)(3). They were either not against the declarant's penal interest or were cumulative and within the discretion of the district court to exclude. Likewise, the hearsay statements were not admissible as a co-conspirator's statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because they were not spoken during the course of the conspiracy or in furtherance of it, and they were not being offered against a party opponent. Fifth, the evidence alleged to be improper under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) was not extrinsic to the case and thus was not subject to the constraints of that rule. United States v. Barnes, 49 F.3d 1144, 1149 (6th Cir.1995). Finally, the defendants' various theories of government misconduct in connection with the prosecution of Leroy Plummer (and thus the status of his Fifth Amendment privilege) fail because they have offered no evidence to suggest that the Government acted with the deliberate intention of distorting the fact-finding process in the Bates trial. United States v. Talley, 164 F.3d 989, 997 (6th Cir.1999).