United States v. Cedeno
644 F.3d 79
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Cedeño was convicted of kidnapping, robbery, and related offenses and sentenced to 319 months’ imprisonment.
- The government moved to preclude cross-examination of Detective Goldrick about a NY Appellate Division finding that he lied in a prior proceeding.
- The district court limited cross-examination based on Cruz and ruled the prior finding was not relevant to Goldrick’s present testimony.
- Cedeño’s co-defendant was allowed to cross-examine Goldrick about the same finding at a suppression hearing.
- The district court later allowed trial testimony to be corroborated by other officers, and the jury heard Goldrick’s testimony with minimal emphasis on the prior credibility finding.
- On appeal, Cedeño challenges the limitation on cross-examination as an abuse of discretion; the government argues any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court’s cross-examination limitation an abuse of discretion? | Cedeño | Government | No, it was an abuse of discretion but harmless. |
| Did the court err by relying solely on Cruz factors to limit cross-examination? | Cedeño | Government | Yes,错; court held Cruz factors were not exhaustive. |
| Was the exclusion of prior credibility finding harmless error? | Cedeño | Government | Yes, the error was harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz, 894 F.2d 41 (2d Cir.1990) (two Cruz factors insufficient; court may consider broader probative factors of credibility)
- Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir.2006) (harmless-error standard in cross-examination)
- Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (harmlessness analysis for evidentiary errors)
- Terry, 702 F.2d 299 (2d Cir.1983) (prior criticisms of testimony probative of truthfulness)
- Whitmore, 359 F.3d 609 (D.C.Cir.2004) (prior lies under oath probative of untruthfulness)
- Schatzle, 901 F.2d 252 (2d Cir.1990) (prior omissions relevance to credibility)
- Bagaric, 706 F.2d 42 (2d Cir.1983) (cross-examination based on credibility finding upheld)
- Dawson, 434 F.3d 956 (7th Cir.2006) (illustrative of evaluating motives and explanations for lies)