United States v. Freddy Lee Parks, 678 F. App'x 785

Background

Parks and co-defendant Devin Washington committed multiple armed robberies in early 2014; police recovered a silver-and-black Desert Eagle after the Check Cashing Store robbery.
Parks confessed to the Check Cashing Store robbery and three other robberies; recordings and detective testimony of those confessions were admitted at trial.
Washington pled guilty, cooperated, and testified for the government at Parks’s trial, identifying the Desert Eagle as Parks’s firearm during the robbery.
Defense pointed to an affidavit by Detective Peart stating Washington had identified the Desert Eagle as the firearm he (Washington) used, creating an apparent inconsistency with Washington’s trial testimony.
Parks sought to call Detectives Peart, Gonzalez, and Acosta to resolve/impeach the discrepancy; the district court curtailed that inquiry and excluded the proposed testimony after a proffer that the interviewing detectives would corroborate Washington’s trial testimony (i.e., Washington did not say he used the Desert Eagle during the robbery).
Jury convicted Parks on Hobbs Act robbery and 924(c) brandishing counts; Parks appealed, arguing the exclusion violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of testimony from detectives (Peart, Gonzalez, Acosta) violated Parks’s Sixth Amendment right to present a defense	Parks: Excluding detective testimony prevented impeachment of Washington and undermined Parks’s ability to present credibility evidence and corroboration	Govt/District Ct: Proffered detective testimony would not contradict Washington; evidence was hearsay or otherwise inadmissible and too attenuated to affect material credibility	Court: No violation — proffered testimony was consistent with Washington and would only show an affidavit drafting error; exclusion was permissible and not prejudicial
Whether defendant had right to introduce hearsay about what others told Detective Peart	Parks: Needed to show Peart recorded a contrary statement to impeach Washington	Govt/District Ct: Such statements are hearsay and Peart lacked personal knowledge about the interviews; not proper impeachment	Court: Exclusion of such hearsay testimony was proper; admissibility concerns justified limiting questioning
Whether excluded evidence was material to elements or affirmative defenses	Parks: Evidence would materially impact credibility and the jury’s view of confessions and witnesses	Govt/District Ct: Evidence unrelated to offense elements or affirmative defenses; link was too attenuated	Court: Held evidence was not directly relevant to offense elements and was too attenuated to require admission
Standard of review and harmlessness burden	Parks: Constitutional error requiring reversal	Govt: Any error would be harmless given proffer and record	Court: Reviewed de novo for constitutional claims and found no constitutional violation; no need to reach harmlessness because no violation established

Key Cases Cited

Perez-Oliveros v. United States, 479 F.3d 779 (11th Cir. 2007) (general review-of-evidence rulings defer to district court)
Sarras v. Zant, 575 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2009) (constitutional-exclusion-of-evidence reviewed de novo)
United States v. Hughes, 840 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2016) (plain-error standard when appellate challenge is raised first on appeal)
United States v. Edouard, 485 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) (plain-error review principles)
United States v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359 (11th Cir. 2004) (two-step test for right to call witnesses and limits on admissibility)
United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2004) (defendant has no right to introduce inadmissible evidence)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (limits on right to present witnesses)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard for constitutional error)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (appellate waiver/briefing requirements)