Court Opinion

ID: 9455756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:32:23.259589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:43.374658
License: Public Domain

MeCREE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the court that the convictions of appellants Jesus Martinez, Jr., and Alejandro Handy should be affirmed. However, I would reverse the conviction of Tomas Martinez because I believe that the District Judge erroneously prevented his attorney from introducing relevant and competent evidence.
Tomas was in jail during the course of the entire conspiracy. The only acts he was charged with committing in furtherance of the conspiracy were offering to introduce and introducing the co-conspirator DeLaCerda to his brother Jesus for the purpose of selling heroin. DeLa-Cerda testified for the Government and was permitted to give his account of these events. But the District Judge refused to allow Tomas to testify to his version of what DeLaCerda said during the alleged offer to make the introduction to Jesus. The court mistakenly concluded that Tomas was seeking to impeach DeLaCerda’s testimony. Tomas’ attorney objected to the rejection of this testimony, but did not make a proffer of proof, perhaps because he was confused by the District Judge’s requirement that a foundation for the evidence be laid.1
*91In my view, the evidence Tomas sought to introduce was offered in direct contradiction of DeLaCerda’s testimony and not as impeachment of his credibility. Even if we characterize the evidence as impeachment by contradiction, the law is clear that the proponent of direct relevant contradicting evidence need not lay a foundation just because the evidence may also impeach the testimony of another witness. United States v. Klein, 187 F.2d 873, 876 (7th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 341 U.S. 952, 71 S.Ct. 1021, 95 L.Ed. 1374 (1951). This was not an attempt to impeach by extrinsic evidence of a collateral matter. It concerned the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to tie Tomas to the conspiracy charged in the indictment.
The court holds that a proffer was necessary because without it we cannot determine whether the evidence sought to be admitted was material. Under the facts in this case there can be no doubt that the evidence was material. What Tomas sought to give was a first-hand account (not hearsay) of a transaction which was one of only two which linked him to the conspiracy. Although he was permitted to narrate his own responses to DeLaCerda, the District Judge’s refusal to allow him to testify to what De-LaCerda said obviously and prejudicially handicapped him in establishing his innocence.
Conspiracy cases are extremely difficult for juries to follow, and jurors sometimes have difficulty in not ascribing inculpating testimony to all defendants regardless of cautionary instructions. See, e. g., Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968); Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 452-454, 69 S.Ct. 716, 93 L.Ed. 790 (Jackson, J., concurring). Because of this danger, judges should be especially careful to make certain that conspiracy defendants’ rights are protected. Here Tomas’ link to the conspiracy was based on two brief conversations with DeLaCerda. He was not allowed to testify to his version of one of these when he took the stand. I would reverse his conviction and remand the case to the District Court for a new trial or for other proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

. The following is the relevant portion of the Transcript, pp, 526-29 :
Q (by Mr. Maturen, counsel for appellant Tomas Martinez),
Q And Mr. DeLaCerda comes in?
A Yes.
Q Now, tell us what conversation took place.
A He approached us and said that he just—
MR. ROTATARI: Objection to what was said, objection to what he stated.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
MR. MATUREN: May it please the Court, I would make my request that he be allowed to follow — to be allowed to have such testimony put in, for the reason that Mr. DeLaCerda has taken the stand and he has said what the conversation was.
Now, if I am going to show that the conversation was any different, I believe I would have to have a witness who was there to tell us. Otherwise, DeLaCerda’s testimony stands and I have no way of rebutting refuting it.
MR. ROTATARI: I don’t believe Mr. DeLaCerda said what anybody else told him.
THE COURT: Your client can testify to what he said to DeLaCerda.
MR. MATUREN: May it please the Court,—
MR. ROTATARI: (Interposing) If there was any different testimony, I don’t recall any groundwork for impeachment being laid upon DeLaCerda to be introduced through this man’s testimony.
MR. MATUREN: As far as impeachment is concerned, I think DeLaCerda’s testimony stands by itself on that point.
May it please the Court, one of the important things of this case — and this is not something new that is brought before the jury — when Mr. DeLaCerda took the stand he said, “I went in, went up to Tomas and asked, ‘what are you in for?’ ‘For narcotics,’ and Tomas said, ‘were you ever in Toledo?’ Tomas said,” — ■
THE COURT: (Interposing) I understand what was said, Mr. Maturen, but as the District Attorney points out, if he wants to deny saying those things, you can ask him what he did or said, but if it is your intention to show the conversation was different, you should have put your version of it to Mr. DeLaCerda on his cross examination. But you didn’t put it to him and, not having put it to him, you cannot now go into the conversation other than to have your client testify as to the things he did or did not say if he wants to deny what DeLaCerda said, but he cannot put other words in DeLaCerda’s mouth because no ground work has been laid for doing it.
MR. MATUREN: I questioned both Mr. Perez and Mr. DeLaCerda thoroughly, and as far as Mr. DeLaCerda was concerned, it is my opinion and impression I went into that matter with him, and if Mr. DeLaCerda is going to stick to his story, I could — like you say, I can ask him ten times, but I will get the same answer, and the only way I felt- —
THE COURT: (Interposing) These are highly technical matters, and I think the position that technical matters have to be handled in a technical manner, and if they are so handled and counsel on either side make any objections then I *91have no alternative but to sustain the objections.
I agree you went over it, you cross examined DeLaCerda at great length, but you didn’t cross examine in the method required to lay the foundation for putting contrary statements to him. It is too late now to undertake to bring out that testimony since the Government objects to it.
MR. MATUREN: May it please the Court, I am not in my mind sure how thoroughly, if at all, I questioned Mr. DeLaCerda in regard to his original conversation with Tom, and the only way— I would say at this point in the week the only way I could be assured what took place is if the notes could be referred to.