United States v. Klein, 23-3022

Tony Daniel Klein was convicted by a jury for willfully depriving inmates of their constitutional right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (18 U.S.C. § 242) and for committing perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623).
Klein appealed, challenging several evidentiary and procedural rulings made by the district court during his trial.
The district court excluded certain out-of-court statements and testimony, limited scope of cross-examination, and denied a continuance beyond fourteen months already granted.
Defense argued these rulings impaired Klein’s right to present a complete defense and to impeach witnesses’ credibility.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court's evidentiary and procedural decisions for abuse of discretion and considered if any errors were harmless.
The conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of non-witness’s out-of-court statements	Excluding planned false allegation evidence was improper and harmed defense	Statements had minimal probative value and risked prejudice/confusion	Exclusion was proper and harmless; did not violate defense rights
Exclusion of staff testimony on Klein’s character	Testimony on Klein’s professionalism should be admitted	Not admissible as character evidence under FRE 404/405	Properly excluded; any error was harmless
Limits on cross-examination of victims	Cross must cover informant status, pending charges, supervision status for impeachment	Limits needed to avoid confusion unless benefits for testimony were shown	Limits were reasonable; jury had enough information for credibility
Denial of a further continuance	Needed more time for defense preparation	Sixteen months since indictment was sufficient	Denial within discretion; no prejudice to defense

Menendez v. Terhune, 422 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2005) (scope of constitutional right to present a defense and evidentiary limitations)
United States v. Lopez-Alvarez, 970 F.2d 583 (9th Cir. 1992) (evaluating cumulative impeachment evidence for jury's knowledge)
United States v. Larson, 495 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2007) (scope of cross-examination and impeachment in criminal cases)
United States v. Torres, 794 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2015) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974) (relevance of witness supervision status for cross-examination)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (standard for district court discretion in granting continuances)