Court Opinion

ID: 9814258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:43:48.756602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:38:46.968037
License: Public Domain

DUGGAN, District Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the decision of the district court should be affirmed. I write separately, however, because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the proposed testimony of the Cincinnati police officer was “not inadmissible.” (Op. at 392.) As the majority acknowledges, the officer decided to secure a warrant for the arrest of defendant’s brother, Anthony, for the illegal possession of a weapon, “based on Anthony’s testimony on his brother’s behalf the preceding afternoon.” (Op. at 391.) As the majority further acknowledges, defendant offered the police officer’s testimony to bolster the credibility of the brother’s testimony. (Id.) The jury heard the testimony of defendant’s brother, however, at the same time the Cincinnati police officer heard the testimony. The fact that the police officer believed the brother should not influence *393the trier of fact with respect to the credibility of the brother’s testimony. Therefore, in my opinion, the police officer’s testimony was not admissible.