Opinion ID: 716196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Testimony of Tracy McGhee

Text: 26 Next, defendant argues that the District Court improperly admitted the testimony of Tracy McGhee. We review the District Court's admission of Tracy McGhee's testimony for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Thomas, 74 F.3d 676, 679 (6th Cir.1996). 27 Defendant first claims that McGhee's activities with Worthen one and one-half years after the time period in the charged indictment were not relevant to the proceedings and thus should have been excluded. Defendant argues that McGhee provided no testimony that the money contained in the package was the money allegedly embezzled from the VA. 28 We reject defendant's argument that McGhee's testimony was not relevant to the proceedings at issue. Her testimony created the inference that defendant buried the money he allegedly embezzled from hospital accounts. This evidence is directly relevant to the embezzlement charges. Even though the money was not uncovered until a year and a half after the time period charged in the indictment, her testimony was relevant and probative on the issues of what defendant had done with the money he had received from the VA hospital, specifically whether defendant took the money for his own use or used it to purchase materials for the hospital. 29 Defendant then argues that even if McGhee's testimony regarding the package of money was relevant, its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, and misleading the jury. 30 Pursuant to Rule 403, relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. FED.R.EVID. 403. Unfair prejudice does not mean the damage to a defendant's case that results from the legitimate probative force of the evidence; rather it refers to evidence which tends to suggest decision on an improper basis. United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 567 (6th Cir.1993) (quotations omitted). A district court has broad discretion in balancing probative value against potential prejudicial impact. United States v. Feinman, 930 F.2d 495, 499 (6th Cir.1991). 31 We find that McGhee's testimony was highly probative on the issue of whether defendant converted VA hospital monies to his own use. Even though McGhee never testified that the monies in the package were embezzled monies, her testimony did raise that inference. The money was buried, suggesting defendant's attempt to conceal money obtained by illegitimate means, and was in one hundred dollar denominations, the form in which he requested his reimbursements from the VA hospital. 32 In addition, we cannot say that the admission of McGhee's testimony was unfair in the sense that it was likely to mislead and not aid or assist the jury in making a determination of whether defendant had embezzled monies from the VA hospital. Although her testimony was obviously harmful to the defense, the probative value of the evidence outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion in the District Court's admission of her testimony.