Court Opinion

ID: 9483130
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:12:23.630844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:49:27.014721
License: Public Domain

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge;
dissenting.
Under United States v. Martin, 507 F.2d 428, 432 (7th Cir.1974), the district court’s refusal to ask members of the jury whether they would believe government agents more than Alarape is grounds for automatic reversal. ' Martin ostensibly created a bright-line rule. The general question is whether “there is sufficient questioning to produce, in light of the factual situation involved in the particular trial, some basis for a reasonably knowledgeable exercise of the right to challenge.” United States v. Sababu, 891 F.2d 1308, 1325 (7th Cir.1989). Martin holds that the question about believing government, agents is necessary to a reasonably knowledgeable exercise of the right to challenge. Refusal to give such an instruction is an abuse of discretion.
It is true that the Martin panel referred to the factual circumstances before it in saying that the question was “particularly important.” But what were those circumstances? The Martin court tells us: there were four witnesses for the government; three were government agents. That is the circumstance in which the question is important. Martin did not even take the stand to rebut what the government agents said. Contrast those circumstances to the facts in this case. All of the prosecution’s witnesses were government agents, and Alarape took the stand to contradict them. Thus Martin is a bright-line rulé that controls the outcome of this case.
I therefore respectfully dissent.