Opinion ID: 162329
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Leading Questions

Text: According to Tyler, the prosecutor’s leading questions caused undue prejudice to Tyler because the prosecutor “ended up, in essence, testifying,” and the questions “enabled the witnesses to mold their testimony in exact accordance with the government’s theory of the case.” Appellate courts have shown “an almost total unwillingness to reverse for infractions” of the rule against leading questions. United States v. DeFiore, 720 F.2d 757, 764 (2d Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Federal Rule of Evidence 611(c) prohibits the use of leading questions on direct examination of a witness “except as may be necessary to develop his testimony.” This Rule vests broad discretion in trial courts. Accordingly, we reverse on the basis of improper leading questions only if the judge’s action amounted to, or contributed to, the denial of a fair trial. Against this background, Tyler has failed to show that his trial was rendered unfair by the Government’s leading questions. Tyler contends that the direct examination of James was full of leading questions, and cites two questions as especially prejudicial to Tyler’s defense: -8- Q: Did [Tyler] talk to you about other people in fact coming in from out of town? .... Q: That crack cocaine that you were going to supply him would be for the people that [Tyler] had coming in. The court sustained Tyler’s objections to both questions, but Tyler claims that James was already tipped off to link his supply to Tyler with Tyler’s subsequent re-distribution to out-of-town customers. The context of these questions shows that they caused Tyler little prejudice. James knew that customers came from out of town, and it would not have required a leading question for him to divulge that information. After the court sustained Tyler’s leading objection, the Government asked where the customers came from, and James identified another city where he thought at least one customer came from. The previous leading question certainly did not provide James with that specific information. The fact that a previous question was improperly leading does not somehow taint all of the information independently obtained through subsequent non-leading questions. As for the question leading James to link his supply to Tyler with “the people that [Tyler] had coming in,” there was already properly elicited testimony suggesting as much. The following exchanges drew no objections from Tyler, and occurred before the question at issue: -9- Q: Did [Tyler] have some concerns that he voiced towards the end of the conversation with regard to some of his people? A: Yes, he was mentioning his buddies coming, that he had people coming down here that he would like to be ready for. .... Q: Based upon what [Tyler] told you about these people coming, did you, at your end of the conversation, believe he needed crack cocaine? A: Yes, ma’am. The question at issue did not add much to this testimony. The frequency of other leading questions in the direct examination of James, while perhaps indicative of less-than-exemplary examination skills, do not appear too far out of the ordinary. The district court sustained Tyler’s objections – Tyler claims that he made 18 such objections – and in several instances, admonished the Government. Such actions cannot be considered an abuse of discretion on the district court’s part. Finally, Tyler claims that he was prejudiced by the Government’s comment in the following exchange before the jury: Q: In your debriefings, you were the one that has informed the Government of these other transactions; is that correct? [Objection, Leading] A: Yes. The Court: Ms. Maye, this witness does not need to be led. - 10 - Q: Mr. Owens, have you told the Government about your other drug transactions? The Court: Why don’t you ask, “What have you told the Government?” Ms. Maye: We would be here all day. The Court: Well, that’s all right; don’t ask leading questions. Tyler then requested a bench conference, and expressed his concern that the comment, “We would be here all day,” might suggest to the jury that the facts contained in the leading questions are true and that the Government was simply trying to save time. Tyler asked “that the jury be admonished that leading questions are improper.” The court admonished the jury as requested. There is no basis for concluding that Tyler’s right to a fair trial was violated.