United States v. Woodard, 699 F.3d 1188

Defendant was arrested at the Gallup port of entry after six duffle bags containing marijuana were found in the trailer he was driving for J & J Trucking.
The government sought to keep cross-examination about a prior judicial credibility finding of the MTD inspector out of evidence via a motion in limine.
That prior credibility finding came from United States v. Variste, where a court found the inspector not credible about odor evidence used to justify a prior stop.
During trial, the odor of marijuana was presented as key evidence of knowledge, and Defendant was convicted after an eight-hour jury deliberation and an Allen charge.
The district court had precluded cross-examination on the Variste credibility determination; Defendant challenges this as a Sixth Amendment confrontation violation.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit reverses, holding the cross-examination restriction violated the Confrontation Clause and is not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether cross-examining on the Variste credibility finding was appropriate	Government argues it was a Rule 403/limiting issue, not constitutional.	Defendant argues the inquiry is appropriate under Rule 608(b) and necessary for Sixth Amendment rights.	Yes; cross-examination was “otherwise appropriate” under Rule 608(b).
Whether restricting cross-examination violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right	Restriction did not bar the jury from assessing credibility; other avenues remained.	Prohibition prevented eliciting information that would undermine the inspector’s credibility and support Defendant's defense.	Yes; restriction violated the Confrontation Clause.
Whether the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Error was harmless given the case focused on odor as circumstantial knowledge evidence.	There is at least a reasonable probability the jury would have reached a different verdict absent the cross-examination.	No; not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. Cedeño, 644 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2011) (admissibility of prior judicial credibility findings under Rule 608(b))
United States v. Dawson, 434 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2006) (cross-examination on prior credibility findings permitted)
Whitmore v. United States, 359 F.3d 609 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (reversing district court for excluding cross-examination about credibility finding)
United States v. Robinson, 583 F.3d 1265 (10th Cir. 2009) (Sixth Amendment confrontation rights; de novo review of cross-examination limitations)
Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (Supreme Court 1986) (test for prejudice from confrontation-rights violations in cross-examination)
United States v. Rosario-Fuentez, 231 F.3d 700 (10th Cir. 2000) (limits on interpreting cross-examination restrictions with respect to credibility)
United States v. Clifton, 406 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2005) (impeachment issues treated as abuse-of-discretion challenges in routine evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Montelongo, 420 F.3d 1169 (10th Cir. 2005) (confrontation-rights and cross-examination standard)