Opinion ID: 3064188
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Gresham 4

Text: 3 We review a district court’s restrictions on cross-examination for abuse of discretion. Orisnord, 483 F.3d at 1178. 4 On appeal, Chappell argues that the district court improperly limited his crossexamination of government witnesses who testified that Chappell confessed to the bank robbery while they were housed together in jail. Chappell does not identify those witnesses by name or analyze them individually. Of the three government witnesses that testified about a jailhouse confession (Gresham, Williams and Sheffield), Chappell asserted a Confrontation Clause argument in the district court only with regard to Gresham. Further, Chappell sought to introduce certified copies of Williams’s and Sheffield’s prior convictions and review those convictions on cross-examination, but the district court excluded this evidence and testimony as unduly cumulative because the convictions already had been 10 At the time of trial, Gresham had two pending state court drug charges. Chappell wanted to inquire into these pending charges on cross-examination “to question his interest and his motivations and his biases and his eagerness to testify favorably to the Government to receive favorable treatment” in the state court cases. Out of the presence of the jury, the district court allowed the parties to question Gresham, who testified that: (1) he had not received any promises regarding his pending state court charges; and (2) he did not think he would get any benefit with regard to those charges by testifying for the government in Chappell’s case. The district court prohibited Chappell from asking about the pending state charges in front of the jury. However, Gresham did testify about his federal charges and sentence. On direct examination before the jury, Gresham testified that he had pled guilty in March 2007 to federal drug charges and that he understood how a Rule 35 motion might reduce his federal sentence. On cross-examination, Chappell reviewed Gresham’s two federal drug convictions and the mandatory minimum sentences he faced on those charges. Gresham also admitted that: (1) he had pled guilty; (2) he had received a 60-month sentence; (3) he did not want to serve a long prison covered on direct examination. Chappell does not challenge these evidentiary rulings on appeal and does not identify any line of questioning as to Williams and Sheffield that he should have been allowed to pursue. Thus, with respect to these three witnesses, we review Chappell’s Confrontation Clause claim only as to Gresham. 11 sentence; (4) he was trying to get the shortest sentence possible; (5) under the terms of his plea agreement, he could get his sentence reduced for providing substantial assistance in the prosecution of another person, but only if the government filed a motion; (6) he already had received one sentence reduction; and (7) he hoped to get a further reduction for his testimony in Chappell’s trial. Here, there was no showing that Gresham’s pending state drug charges were relevant to the facts of Chappell’s bank robbery case or that Gresham made a deal with the government with regard to his pending state charges. Indeed, Gresham testified that he did not expect to receive any favorable treatment as to his state charges for testifying in Chappell’s federal trial. Thus, Gresham’s pending state drug charges were only “marginally relevant.” See Francis v. Dugger, 908 F.2d 696, 699, 702 (11th Cir. 1990) (concluding, on habeas review, that trial court did not violate Confrontation Clause in prohibiting defendant from asking government witness about pending unrelated murder charge because it was only “marginally relevant”).5 Furthermore, Chappell was permitted to explore on cross-examination Gresham’s motives for testifying for the government, including his hope for a 5 Like the district court, we reject Chappell’s argument that Gresham was a “star” or “key” witness for the government. The government’s case against Chappell was made by piecing together circumstantial evidence using the testimony of numerous witnesses, of which Gresham was only one. As the district court noted, this trial had no star or key government witness. 12 reduced sentence on his federal drug charges upon a Rule 35 motion by the government. In other words, sufficient information was elicited from Gresham for the jury to adequately assess his possible bias. Under the circumstances, we cannot say the district court violated the Confrontation Clause or abused its discretion in prohibiting cross-examination as to Gresham’s pending unrelated state charges.