United States v. White
692 F.3d 235
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- White, a felon, was convicted of possession of a firearm by a felon and sentenced to 235 months with 5 years’ supervised release.
- A stop-and-frisk in Queens yielded one firearm allegedly from White’s pocket and two firearms from a purse belonging to another occupant, Jennings.
- White’s defense theory was that the firearm at issue was not recovered from White’s person, but from the vehicle or another occupant.
- The district court excluded two sets of evidence: (a) the arrests and charging histories of the other occupants, and (b) a prior judicial finding discrediting a government witness in a different case.
- The appellate court held that charging decisions may be cross-examined if relevant and probative, not categorically excluded, and that seven non-exhaustive factors from Cedeño govern admissibility of prior credibility findings.
- The court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial, finding the exclusions were not harmless and prevented a complete defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of charging decisions | White: charging decisions may be cross-examined if probative. | Government: charging decisions are not proper cross-examination evidence. | Charging decisions may be admissible if relevant and probative; not per se inadmissible. |
| Relevance and Rule 403 balancing of charging decisions | White: high probative value of charging decisions to rebut officer testimony. | GOV: risk of confusion and complexity justifies exclusion. | District court erred by not conducting proper Rule 403 balancing; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Use of prior credibility findings (Goines) to impeach | White: Cruz and Cedeño permit use of prior adverse credibility findings to impeach witness. | Government: Cruz/Cedeño limits and cautions against using prior credibility findings. | Under Cedeño, prior credibility findings are admissible if seven factors weigh in favor of probative value. |
| Harmless error and impact on trial | Excluded evidence directly affected critical elements of the case and complete defense. | Error could have been harmless given other corroborating testimony. | Exclusion was not harmless; errors reversibly prejudiced White. |
| Hearsay and other evidentiary questions | Need for clarity on hearsay implications of charging documents and prior findings. | Requests for ruling on hearsay issues were not raised on appeal. | Hearsay questions preserved for re-trial; district court may consider hearsay objections on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (criminal defendant may introduce evidence of another person’s involvement)
- Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1986) (meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense)
- United States v. Cruz, 894 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990) (two Cruz factors for prior credibility findings)
- Cedeño, 644 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (seven non-exhaustive factors for probity of prior witness credibility findings)
- Ravich, 421 F.2d 1196 (2d Cir. 1970) (chain-of-inference admissibility does not render evidence irrelevant)
- United States v. Terry, 702 F.2d 299 (2d Cir. 1983) (wide latitude in cross-examining government witnesses)
- Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515 (2d Cir. 2000) (factors for assessing harmlessness of evidentiary error)
- Goines, 604 F. Supp. 2d 533 (E.D.NY. 2009) (district court credibility findings regarding Herrmann were central to admissibility analysis)