Opinion ID: 71643
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Objections to Joseph’s Testimony

Text: Senegal and York also vigorously objected to the testimony of Joseph in its entirety. The Government did not disclose its intent to call Joseph as a witness until three days before trial. During Joseph’s direct examination, the Government asked him about his role as a paid informant with the Federal 3 Bruton held that a codefendant’s confession that implicated a defendant at a joint trial violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right, and constituted reversible error. 391 U.S. at 136–37. 4 Senegal does not appeal this ruling on Bruton grounds. 7 Case: 08-40406 Document: 00511059611 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/23/2010 No. 08-40406 Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”). Joseph responded that he had cooperated with the FBI as an undercover informant since his Texas City arrest two years earlier, and that the FBI paid him approximately $1,500 for his work on matters not related to Senegal and York’s case. Senegal and York immediately objected, and the district court heard arguments outside the presence of the jury. Senegal and York argued that they had inquired about whether the Government had made any agreements with any of their witnesses, and that the Government had not disclosed Joseph’s work for the FBI. The Government responded that it had no agreement with Joseph, and that although Joseph had worked for the FBI for two years, he had not provided any information for compensation in Senegal and York’s case. The FBI case agent for whom Joseph worked informed the district court that (1) Joseph had provided information as to narcotics trafficking and violent street gang activity; (2) Joseph participated in routine, ongoing investigations; (3) the FBI had made no specific promises to Joseph regarding mitigation of sentencing or dropping of charges that would suggest a compromise of impartiality; (4) most of the money paid to Joseph went to buying a cell phone so that FBI agents could keep in touch with him, and the rest went to financing Joseph’s controlled purchases; (5) Joseph had not worked on any case related to any of the parties or witnesses who had testified for the Government in Senegal and York’s case; and (6) Joseph had made no offer to “adjust or alter, modify, add to or delete from any testimony regarding facts about which he ha[d] personal knowledge in order to secure a conviction of any kind.” In response, Senegal and York requested the financial records documenting Joseph’s compensation from the Government. The district court denied this request, stating that Senegal and York could question Joseph about his finances on cross-examination. Finding that Senegal and York suffered no undue prejudice from the Government’s late disclosure of Joseph’s financial 8 Case: 08-40406 Document: 00511059611 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/23/2010 No. 08-40406 relationship with the FBI, the district court permitted Joseph to testify. When Joseph testified about the Texas City arrest, Senegal and York objected again, arguing that the Government had not given them prior notice as to that portion of Joseph’s testimony. The district court overruled the objection.