United States v. Beck
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23125
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Beck and Thomas were convicted in connection with two Madison, Wisconsin bank robberies; May 9 robbery involved a phone call traced to Beck’s phone and fingerprints linking Thomas; May 21 robbery involved multiple co-conspirators and physical and testimonial evidence tying Beck/Thomas to the crime.
- Co-conspirators included Simmons, Liggons, Murray, and others; Simmons cooperated later and provided statements implicating Beck and Thomas; Liggons testified at trial; defense sought to show Simmons’s bias as a gang member to frame the defendants.
- Defense sought to cross-examine Simmons about Gangster Disciples membership and possible motive to lie to support a theory that higher-ranking gang members actually committed the robbery.
- Probation officer testified that a phone number used to call the bank belonged to Beck; Beck was acquitted of the May 9 charge, but the evidence bore on his identity.
- Court held trial court erred in admitting the probation officer’s testimony and in limiting the defense’s cross-examination of Simmons, but the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the remaining strong evidence of guilt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the probation officer's testimony admissible? | Beck | Beck | No; held abuse of discretion and prejudicial, but harmless |
| Did the trial court improperly limit cross-examination to expose bias? | Beck and Thomas | Beck and Thomas | Yes; error under Confrontation Clause, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 ((1974)) (core confrontation right to expose bias)
- Van Arsdall v. California, 475 U.S. 673 ((1986)) (harmless-error framework for confrontation violations)
- Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227 ((1988)) (reliability impact when cross-exam questions affect corroborating witnesses)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 ((1999)) (harmless-error standard for constitutional violations)
- Castelan v. United States, 219 F.3d 690 ((7th Cir.2000)) (framework for assessing whether remaining evidence supports guilt)
- United States v. Smith, 454 F.3d 707 ((7th Cir.2006)) (two-step Confrontation Clause analysis; peripheral vs core questions)
- United States v. Harris, 587 F.3d 861 ((7th Cir.2009)) (abuse of discretion standard for admission of testimony; harmless error)
- United States v. Manske, 186 F.3d 770 ((7th Cir.1999)) (bias is relevant and cross-examination should be allowed)
- United States v. Thompson, 359 F.3d 470 ((7th Cir.2004)) (latitude in cross-examining target witnesses)