United States v. Cahlan Clay, 883 F.3d 1056

At a 2012 wedding reception in Kansas City, Detective Anderson heard gunshots, entered a nearby parking lot, saw Cahlan Clay fire a handgun, and pursued him; Anderson fired, hitting Clay, who dropped the gun and surrendered.
Clay faced state charges (mistrial) and then federal prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm; two federal trials occurred, the first ending in mistrial, the second resulting in conviction and 120-month sentence.
At trials, Anderson and Officer Thomas gave somewhat differing accounts about the number of shots and the shooter’s clothing; defense argued their testimony changed after seeing physical evidence and after observing closing arguments in the first federal trial.
At the second federal trial the district court excluded defense testimony about whether the officers were present for closing arguments at the first federal trial and limited cross-examination about Anderson’s potential motive to lie to avoid punishment for an unjustified shooting.
Clay appealed, claiming violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to present a defense and his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right to cross-examine witnesses. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding testimony that officers observed closing arguments at prior federal trial violated right to present a defense	Clay: testimony would show officers tailored later testimony to fit physical evidence, bolstering defense that Anderson lied about Clay having a gun	Gov: testimony was of little probative value, cumulative, and risked confusing issues; impeachment could be done via other prior statements	Exclusion proper—trial court reasonably found low probative value outweighed confusion; defendant had other means to impeach
Whether limiting cross-examination about Anderson’s potential motive to avoid punishment violated Confrontation Clause	Clay: testimony about consequences of an unjustified shooting would show motive to lie, i.e., bias	Gov: questions speculative, lacked foundation, and would be distracting/repetitive	Limitation proper—court within wide latitude to require foundation and restrict speculative, marginally relevant questioning

Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (establishes right to present a defense but recognizes trial judge discretion to exclude marginally relevant evidence)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Confrontation Clause allows reasonable limits on cross-examination to prevent harassment, confusion, or marginal relevance)
Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (discusses argument about tailoring testimony after hearing other witnesses; not dispositive on admissibility of testimony)
United States v. Williams, 796 F.3d 951 (8th Cir.) (upholds limitation on cross-examination about officers’ alleged motive to plant evidence absent proper foundation)
United States v. Hawkins, 796 F.3d 843 (8th Cir.) (standard for reviewing constitutional trial errors)