District Court Did Not Abuse Discretion in Limiting Cross Examination of Officer

U.S. v. Beltran-Garcia, 2009 WL 2231667 (7/28/09) (unpub'd) - Cross-examination of an officer, whose credibility was important, concerning an unrelated prior misrepresentation of the extent of consent given to search a house and the omission in his report on the incident of material facts was admissible under F. R. Evid 608(b). But the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding that cross on 403 grounds, since there was some danger the cross might lead to evidence of the officer's bad collateral behavior, [e.g. the officer's assault on the arrestee], despite defense counsel's promise not to do so. The officer's testimony about his credentials did not hold himself out as a model officer so as to allow evidence to correct such an impression.

The 10th held the cross restriction did not deny the defendants' right to confrontation because the defendants could have crossed on other matters, e.g. inconsistencies, that would have called the officer's credibility into question. I don't recall ever seeing before upholding a cross restriction on the grounds of what other things counsel could have crossed on when counsel didn't actually cross on those things.

The sentence of one of the defendants is reversed because the court never afforded the defendant the opportunity to allocute. The remedy is reversal even when the defendant does not object.