Faulkner denied cert; Vasquez granted
by: Ryan • November 27, 2011 • no comments
Whether a warrant cures a bad stop is a question that SCOTUS will not answer this year. Cert in Faulkner was denied this morning. If you've got this issue, though, please check out Jonah Morningstar's post on this topic.
SCOTUS did grant cert in US v. Vasquez. The issue involves impeachment evidence that the judge instructed the jury was admitted for the truth. Everyone agrees that was error. But the question is whether it was harmless error (lower court said yes, harmless), and that appears to be the issue SCOTUS will address.
Mr. Vasquez lost on a number of issues, most of which are not going to be at issue. But it's an interesting opinion nevertheless. Although the court's conclusions all cut in favor of the state in this case, there are times the same rules would cut in favor of the defendant. For example. . . .
It is within the discretion of a trial judge to limit cross-examination, especially when, as here, the discrepancies are minor. See United States v. Mojica, 185 F.3d 780, 788-89 (7th Cir. 1999) (district court did not abuse discretion in limiting cross-examination of a witness regarding prior drug use when the inconsistencies were "no more than minor discrepancies").
How often do we - in limine - ask the court to limit cross-examination of, say, a client, because some of the discrepancies are minor? Maybe we should.
Another rule the opinion mentioned:
A document does not need to be "admissible as substantive evidence in order to be used for the purposes of impeaching a witness (or refreshing his recollection)." Pecoraro v. Walls, 286 F.3d 439, 444 (7th Cir. 2002).
Again, nothing you don't already know, but never hurts to be reminded.
The court also had reason to mention that:
"[A] party may not call a witness for the sole purpose of impeaching him." United States v. Giles, 246 F.3d 966, 974 (7th Cir. 2001).
And this:
Extrinsic evidence of a witness' bias, however, is admissible to impeach that witness and is never a collateral issue. United States v. Lindemann, 85 F.3d 1232, 1243 (7th Cir. 1996).
And this was a good reminder as well:
"[T]wo statements need not be diametrically opposed to be inconsistent." United States v. Jones, 808 F.2d 561, 568 (7th Cir. 1986).
All in all, a good collection of rules for your trial notebook.
