Opinion ID: 63364
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Cross Examination of Robert Bosley

Text: In his defense, Osorio introduced the testimony of Robert Bosley, who worked with Osorio for ten to twelve years and had hired Osorio as an employee in early 2006. Bosley testified that his records indicated that Osorio was at work on February 21, 2006, that Osorio never exhibited suspect behavior or said anything suspicious regarding drugs, and it would not be unusual for Osorio to leave work later than 5:00 p.m. Although Osorio’s counsel inquired whether Bosley had “gotten to know about his character and generally the kind of person Mr. Osorio is,” Bosley provided no testimony regarding Osorio’s character for truthfulness, law-abiding nature, or any other pertinent character trait. During cross-examination, the following colloquy ensued: Q. You indicated that, to a certain extent, you have a sort of familiarity with Mr. Osorio based on your working relationship. You talked about his character. Would it surprise you if you learned that the substance cocaine was found in his residence? MR. NGUYEN [Counsel for Osorio]: Objection, Judge. Whether the witness is surprised or not is not relevant to this case. THE COURT: Overruled. 9 No. 07-20464 BY MR. BURNS [Prosecutor]: Q. Would that surprise you, sir? A. It probably would. Yes. Q. Would it be fair to say that the Osorio that you know would not be an individual that might have small quantities of cocaine at his residence? A. I don’t believe he would. Q. And the Osorio that you know is not the type of individual that would have or be around large quantities of cocaine? A. I don’t believe so. No. Q. And if, in fact, the individual that you do know was found in those circumstances, it’d be fair to say that maybe you might not really know him? A. Possible. Yes. I know him as business and that’s it. Bosley provided no further testimony concerning Osorio’s character. Osorio claims on appeal that the prosecutor’s questions constitute error that was “gravely prejudicial,” because they rested upon an assumption of his guilt. A district court’s decision to permit a certain line of cross-examination is typically reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Smith-Bowman, 76 F.3d 634, 636 (5th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Candelaria-Gonzalez, 547 F.2d 291, 294 (5th Cir. 1977)). However, where the defendant fails to make a proper objection to comments or questions by a prosecutor, we apply plain error review. See United States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852, 858 (5th Cir. 2008). Plain error exists if (1) there was error; (2) the error was clear and obvious; and (3) the error affected a substantial right. United States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir. 2001). A finding of plain error is limited to those errors that “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Osorio acknowledges that a plain error 10 No. 07-20464 standard applies, because his relevance objection was not sufficiently specific to challenge (as he does in the instant appeal) the questions as resting upon an assumption of guilt. Under certain circumstances, a district court abuses its discretion when it permits on cross-examination questioning designed to elicit speculative responses that rest on an assumption of guilt. Candelaria-Gonzalez, 547 F.2d at 294. In Candelaria-Gonzalez, we found improper a prosecutor’s hypothetical questions of character witnesses that required each witness to assume the conviction of the defendant for the offense charged. The government inquired of three witnesses whether the defendant’s reputation would be affected if he were convicted of trafficking in narcotics. Id. at 293. Finding an abuse of discretion, we explained, The nature of the questions put to Ledesma’s witnesses by government counsel, however, was a far cry from any concept of formulated community opinion. Rather, the questions posed sought speculative responses resting upon an assumption of guilt. Government counsel asked if Ledesma’s reputation would be affected if he were convicted of the alleged crime. These hypothetical questions struck at the very heart of the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to Anglo-Saxon concepts of fair trial. We think that the risk of prejudice to defendant’s basic rights from such questions requires reversal. The questions put have no place in a criminal trial. Id. at 294 (citations omitted). However, Candelaria-Gonzalez is distinguishable. There, character witnesses testified about the defendant’s reputation for honesty in the community, and the prosecutor asked them whether Candelaria-Gonzalez’s reputation would be affected if he were convicted of the alleged crime, thereby implicating the sacrosanct presumption of innocence. Id. In addition, the admission of the cross-examination questions in Candelaria-Gonzalez was reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. 11 No. 07-20464 Here, Osorio’s defense was not based wholly on the credibility of character witnesses, and the prosecutor’s questions concerned undisputed facts.4 Although irrelevant, the prosecutor’s four questions in cross-examination simply summed up the undisputed evidence that Osorio was around large quantities of cocaine, and a small amount of cocaine was recovered from his apartment. The inquiries did not assume Osorio’s knowledge of the cocaine or intent to possess it. Bosley was asked only whether the undisputed evidence in the case was consistent with his knowledge of Osorio. He was never required to assume Osorio’s guilt. Accordingly, the “grossly prejudicial” harm set forth in Candelaria-Gonzalez is absent. This case is similar to United States v. Smith-Bowman, 76 F.3d at 636. There, the district court permitted the prosecutor to cross-examine a character witness concerning the defendant’s use of a credit card, an allegation that she 4 In fact, Osorio adopted these facts, stating in opening, And from his mere presence being in the van when they eventually uncovered the drugs in the van and in the panel – you will hear some testimony from DEA Agent Cornelius that it was welded in a panel in a minivan in the back, no odors, no detection, that any passenger sitting in the van would not know it was hid back there. In closing, Osorio argued, We know that the plastic wrap and the seal bags, the one small scale, the two small Ziploc bags and the two sandwich-size Ziploc bags which had cocaine residue on them, the four bags and the scales – we know they were found at [Osorio’s address]. We also know from the evidence that the 10 packages found in the van were undetectable. They were hidden – well hidden behind the panel and you couldn’t see them. 12 No. 07-20464 did not contest. Id.5 Over the objection of defense counsel, the character witness was asked, Have you heard that this defendant took an American Red Cross credit card and went to the La Quinta Inn and rented a room in the name of Judy Walker so she could have a rendezvous with her boyfriend? Have you heard that this defendant took an American Red Cross credit card and bought jewelry for herself? Id. Finding no error, the Smith-Bowman court distinguished CandelariaGonzalez, because the questions did not clearly assume the defendant’s guilt for the charged offense, the allegations were uncontested, and her defense was not based wholly on the credibility of character witnesses. Id. at 636-37. In any case, reversing the district court under plain error review would require us to find that the admission of such cross-examination was so egregious as to seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Jimenez, 256 F.3d at 340. The testimony here, which boils down to a defense witness admitting that he would be surprised to learn that Osorio had small amounts of cocaine in his home and was “around large quantities of cocaine,” does not reach that level of error, if any.