Opinion ID: 743614
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Alleged coaching of witness Youmaran

Text: 107 Youmaran testified that he accompanied Toma on two occasions in March or April 1994 to Ameneiro's tanning salon for the purpose of attempting to obtain payment from Ameneiro for cocaine previously delivered by Toma, but that Ameneiro refused to pay on either occasion. Youmaran testified that he knew Ameneiro, and he identified him in court. 108 During the cross-examination of Youmaran, Ameneiro's lawyer suggested that the government had coached Youmaran's testimony by displaying a photo of Ameneiro two days prior to trial and telling him to identify Ameneiro when asked. Defendants argue that, since Youmaran was shown a photo of Ameneiro prior to trial, his in-court identification of Ameneiro was coached and was inaccurate. This argument, however, is based on a self-serving and selective view of the record. During re-direct examination, Youmaran made clear that he had been shown an array of photos, not just Ameneiro's, and he also denied that his identification had been coached by the government. 109 [THE GOVERNMENT] How many photographs did you see? 110 [YOUMARAN] A few. 111 [THE GOVERNMENT] A few? 112 [YOUMARAN] Quite a few, yes. 113 [THE GOVERNMENT] Not just a photograph of Mr. Ameneiro? 114 .... 115 [YOUMARAN] No. 116 [THE GOVERNMENT] Now, let me ask you this, did I tell you what to say this morning? 117 [YOUMARAN] No, sir. 118 [THE GOVERNMENT] Did any agent of the United States government, FBI agent or U.S. Attorney's office ever tell you what to say? 119 [YOUMARAN] No. 120 [THE GOVERNMENT] What did I tell you you had to say today? 121 [YOUMARAN] The truth. 122 [THE GOVERNMENT] What did you understand will happen to you under your plea agreement if you don't tell the truth? 123 [YOUMARAN] I will be facing the maximum sentence. 124 (Tr. at 830-31.) As the foregoing demonstrates, Youmaran made clear that the government instructed him to tell the truth during his testimony. Counsel for Ameneiro had ample opportunity during cross-examination to suggest that Youmaran's testimony was coached, and he further had the opportunity, and took advantage of this opportunity, to present his arguments concerning coaching directly to the jury. He recited to the jury directly from his cross-examination of Youmaran, and suggested to them that the coaching of Youmaran creates more than reasonable doubt. Thus, the issue of the veracity of Youmaran's identification was fully and vigorously argued before the jury, which was able to make its determination in light of these extensive arguments. 125 As stated, for a defendant to receive a new trial on the basis of allegedly perjured testimony, he must first show that the testimony was in fact false. Saadeh, 61 F.3d at 523; see also United States v. Ferguson, 35 F.3d 327, 332 (7th Cir.1994). Since Defendants have failed to provide any evidence that [Youmaran] committed perjury, much less that the government knew or should have known of any alleged perjury, Saadeh, 61 F.3d at 523, there is no basis for us to conclude that any prosecutorial misconduct occurred. 126