United States v. Emmanuel Hart, 995 F.3d 584

Defendant Emmanuel Hart was tried and convicted for two bank robberies; both involved notes demanding untraceable $100 bills and threatening language.
A tracking device planted by the First American teller led agents to buses near 63rd & Halsted; Hart was arrested on the No. 8 bus with cash and the tracking device; fingerprints on both demand notes matched Hart.
Hart proceeded pro se and extensively cross-examined officers about the investigation timeline and whether officers boarded a 63rd Street bus prior to the No. 8 bus stop. Testimony varied: Detective Motyka said he briefly boarded the 63rd Street bus but did not recall seeing Hart; Agent Yoder said he boarded only the No. 8 bus; Agent Lovernick initially misspoke then corrected his testimony.
Before the government rested Hart sought a continuance to recall eight government witnesses (including Motyka and Yoder) to further impeach the timeline; the district court allowed recall of Lovernick but ultimately denied recall of Motyka and Yoder as cumulative, repetitive, and potentially dilatory.
On appeal Hart claimed Sixth Amendment violations (Confrontation Clause and Compulsory Process). The Seventh Circuit found Hart preserved an objection given his pro se status, addressed the merits, and affirmed.

Issue	Hart's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether denying recall of Motyka and Yoder violated the Confrontation Clause by preventing additional cross-examination	Hart says he needed to confront witnesses to impeach the timeline (show he wasn’t on the 63rd bus with the cash)	Government says Hart already had the opportunity to cross-examine and proposed recall would be cumulative; district court reasonably limited redundant questioning	Denial did not violate Confrontation Clause; defendant had ample opportunity to impeach and proposed recall would have been redundant and marginally relevant
Whether denying recall abridged Hart’s compulsory process right by preventing material defense testimony	Hart argues recalling witnesses would produce testimony materially favorable to his theory that he acquired the cash after the 63rd bus stop	Government contends testimony would be cumulative and not material given overwhelming evidence linking Hart to the robberies	Denial did not violate compulsory process; testimony would be cumulative and not reasonably likely to change the verdict

Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15 (1985) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for cross-examination but not unlimited or perfectly effective questioning)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (district courts may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination for various concerns)
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858 (1982) (compulsory process requires witness testimony be relevant and material; cumulative evidence is not material)
United States v. Clark, 657 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2011) (a reasonable opportunity to impeach satisfies Confrontation Clause concerns)
United States v. Groce, 891 F.3d 260 (7th Cir. 2018) (identifies core Confrontation Clause values like exposing bias and impeachment)
United States v. Trent, 863 F.3d 699 (7th Cir. 2017) (denial is problematic when defendant lacks reasonable opportunity to elicit impeachment)
United States v. Williamson, 202 F.3d 974 (7th Cir. 2000) (compulsory process abridged only when excluded witness testimony is relevant and material)
United States v. Khan, 508 F.3d 413 (7th Cir. 2007) (denying repetitive or cumulative questioning is within district court discretion)
United States v. Hathaway, 882 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2018) (preservation on appeal requires timely and specific objection, though courts give some leeway to pro se defendants)