Opinion ID: 567448
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Introduction of Illegally Obtained Evidence to Impeach

Text: 74 Joseph Bickett claims that the district court improperly allowed four pieces of suppressed evidence to be introduced for the purpose of impeaching him on cross-examination. The items of suppressed evidence were: A pipe for free-basing cocaine; a green leafy substance on the bathroom shelf; a package of white powder floating in the commode; and a loaded firearm in defendant's car. Under United States v. Havens, 446 U.S. 620, 627 (1980), defendant contends that illegally obtained items only may be introduced into evidence to impeach defendant's answers to questions put to him on cross-examination that are plainly within the scope of the defendant's direct examination. Defendant argues that the United States failed to impeach him by eliciting conflicting answers to prior testimony. 75 The United States contends that none of the four items was introduced into evidence. The prosecution merely asked defendant questions concerning whether or not he possessed the items at the time of arrest. 76 We find that the district court used its discretion properly in allowing the government to cross-examine Joseph Bickett concerning his possession of the suppressed items. The Supreme Court has indicated that the prosecution must restrict the introduction of suppressed evidence to impeachment purposes, that is, it is permissible only to ensure that a defendant is not perjuring himself while testifying. Havens, 446 U.S. at 627. The prosecutor in this matter only asked questions concerning whether defendant possessed these items at the time of his arrest. Since defendant answered in the affirmative, the prosecution did not move to introduce the items into evidence.