Opinion ID: 529953
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limited Cross Examination of Government Witness

Text: 99 The government produced as a witness, Richard Neidig, who had served as Furst's assistant and who had actually prepared the paperwork in connection with the two internal stock trades. During cross examination Furst sought to establish that Neidig had an innocent mental state during these transactions. The government objected to this inquiry on grounds of relevance and the district court sustained the objection. Furst asserts that the district court erred in this ruling. 100 A district court's rulings on the permissible scope of cross examination are within its sound discretion, and may only be reversed for an abuse of that discretion. See United States v. Apfelbaum, 621 F.2d 62, 65 (3d Cir.1980). 101 Furst argues that the limitation of his cross examination of Neidig was significant because Neidig's innocent state of mind was probative of Furst's state of mind inasmuch as Neidig was operating under Furst's supervision. We cannot accept this argument as we do not comprehend what Neidig's state of mind had to do with that of Furst for a person acting under the direction of another might not have the same information as his supervisor. In any event, inasmuch as the testimony sought was merely duplicative of that Neidig had already provided, it was well within the discretion of the district court to sustain the government's objection to this one question: 102 Q: In September 1985 when you had the conversation with Mr. Furst about the Machine Vision transaction, did you understand or did you have any feeling in your mind that what you were being asked to do was a criminal act? 103 A: No. 104 Q: Would you have complied with Mr. Furst's instructions if you believed that he was instructing you to do a criminal act? 105 A: No. 106 Q: Did you believe that what he was instructing you to do was illegal? 107 Mr. Samuelson: Objection, Your Honor. His intent is irrelevant. 108 Appellant's app. at 379. 109 Moreover, even if the district court had erred in limiting Furst's cross examination of Neidig, we would view the error as harmless since Neidig had already answered several similar questions. 110