United States v. Charles McCullough, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 1476

Gavin and McCullough were convicted after trial for conspiracy to murder under 18 U.S.C. § 1958; others were dismissed or acquitted earlier.
Indictment charged a conspiracy to murder Evans, a Mississippi state prosecutor, using interstate commerce facilities, with payments promised for the murders.
The government relied on the testimony of FBI informant McCloud, who coordinated with agents to simulate a hit for Evans.
Defense cross-examination sought details of McCloud’s prior crimes and truthful conduct; the court limited some lines of questioning under Rule 403.
A redacted indictment was provided to the jury, removing names of dismissed co-conspirators and second-victim references, while preserving underlying charges.
The government’s closing argument linked a reference to a ‘Mae Ree’ in McCullough’s call to a dismissed co-conspirator to a person on Gavin’s visitor list; no objection was raised.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation right limits on cross-examination	Gavin/McCullough claim cross-examination was unduly limited.	McCloud’s prior convictions and credibility should be fully explored.	No reversible error; limitations were within the court’s discretion and not clearly prejudicial.
Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy	Evidence shows an agreement between Gavin and McCullough and a promised payment.	There was no explicit agreement or value exchanged between Gavin and McCullough.	Sufficient evidence supported a reasonable inference of agreement and pecuniary payoff.
Variance between indictment and proof	Indictment referenced two victims; trial evidence concerned Evans only.	Material variance prejudiced substantial rights.	Variance was not material; harmless error analysis applied.
Closing argument error regarding Mae Ree	Government linked Mae Ree to McMillian using last name in closing.	No last name connection was made in testimony; improper emphasis.	Plain-error review applied; statement did not substantially prejudice defendants.

United States v. Skelton, 514 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2008) (limits on cross-examination evaluated for harmless error and abuse of discretion)
United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2004) (confrontation rights and cross-examination standards)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (Supreme Court 1974) (Confrontation Clause includes right to impeach credibility)
Restivo v. United States, 8 F.3d 274 (5th Cir. 1993) (limits on cross-examination and credibility assessment)
United States v. Jimenez, 464 F.3d 555 (5th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for cross-examination limits)