United States v. Edward Ferris, 704 F. App'x 225

Background

On Jan. 6, 2015, a masked man robbed a SunTrust bank in Culpeper, VA; surveillance and snow impressions linked distinctive shoes and a vehicle to the scene.
Tips identified Edward Ferris; he was arrested Jan. 29, 2015. Jail calls show Ferris instructing Giovanni “Wiz” Waters to remove items from Ferris’s room; Wiz removed a jacket, shoes, a gun in a brown case, and clothing.
Items discarded on a roadside matched the robbery evidence: size 10.5 shoes whose soles matched impressions and a black North Face jacket with adhesive residue like that covering logos on the robber’s coat. DNA expert tied Ferris to the jacket.
Multiple witnesses (Ford, Mrs. Nelms, Wiz, Kecia, Scales) and recorded jail calls implicated Ferris; Ford and others gave varying statements and some had motives or relationships relevant to bias.
Ferris was tried by jury, convicted on most counts (aggravated bank robbery, 924(c) brandishing, conspiracy/obstruction counts, felon-in-possession counts with one hung and one acquittal), sentenced to concurrent terms plus consecutive §924(c) term, and appealed claiming several trial-ruling errors.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (U.S.)	Defendant's Argument (Ferris)	Held
Whether denial of challenge for cause to a juror violated Sixth Amendment	Denial was harmless because juror ultimately was removed by Ferris’s peremptory challenge	Prospective juror’s bank-manager spouse made her biased; court should have struck for cause	Affirmed: no deprivation because Ferris used a peremptory challenge; no Sixth Amendment violation (Martinez-Salazar controls)
Whether sustaining objections to leading questions improperly limited Ferris’s right to testify	Objections were proper because questions were leading; court allowed the substance via rephrasing	Objections prevented Ferris from presenting crucial denials about cleaning the jacket and intent during jail calls	Affirmed: district court acted within discretion; rephrasing permitted the same testimony; no denial of right to testify
Whether limiting cross-examination of CPD Lt. Terrill (general questions about girlfriends lying) violated Confrontation Clause	Limits were reasonable because the line was speculative, marginally relevant, and Terrill not qualified as expert	Cross-examination was needed to expose bias of Scales and other witnesses who cooperated for relationships	Affirmed: limits were within trial court’s wide latitude to curb marginal/repetitive inquiry (Van Arsdall)
Whether sustaining hearsay objection to cross-exam of FBI Agent Blake about who turned in the gun violated confrontation/right to cross-examine	Objection was proper if the witness lacked personal knowledge or would repeat hearsay	Cutting off the question prevented establishing who provided the gun and could have shown witness bias or immaterial gaps	Court erred in sustaining hearsay objection but error was harmless: Kecia and Officer McNeill later directly testified and the facts were undisputed; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304 (permitting use of peremptory challenge to remove juror who should have been excused for cause)
United States v. Smith, 451 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.) (standard on limits to cross-examination review)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (defendant’s right to testify not unlimited; restrictions must not be arbitrary)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (Confrontation Clause allows reasonable limits on cross-examination of bias)
United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195 (4th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion review for limiting defendant’s testimony)
United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (reasonable restrictions on evidence presentation permitted)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless error standard: "substantial and injurious effect")
Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unlimited scope)