Opinion
No. 01 CR 180 (LTS)
February 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Government has moved in limine to preclude the defense from making any mention during the trial of the above-captioned action, including during cross examination of Government witnesses, of the previous membership of any testifying or arresting officer in the Bronx Street Crimes Unit, the general practices of the Bronx Street Crimes Unit, and any general misconduct (including any alleged racially motivated misconduct) by the Bronx Street Crimes Unit or the New York City Police Department. The Government further moves to preclude the defense from making any claim during trial, or asking any question or introducing any evidence suggesting, that the police officers who arrested Mr. Belk engaged in racially motivated misconduct in this case. In support of its motion, the Government argues that the fact that the arresting officers were assigned to the Bronx Street Crimes Unit at the time of Mr. Belk's arrest has no relevance to any material fact in this case. The Government further contends that introduction of such evidence would be unduly prejudicial to the prosecution in this case because of widely publicized charges of racially motivated misconduct by the New York City Police Department, in particular the Bronx Street Crimes Unit.
Although the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant in a criminal prosecution the right to confront the witnesses against him, the trial court has discretion to impose limits on the scope of cross examination. See United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 335-36 (2d Cir. 1993). Any "blanket prohibition on exploration of an area that is central to an assessment of the witness's reliability" should, however, be avoided. United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 955 (2d Cir. 1990). Trial courts are instructed to supervise the "mode . . . of interrogating witnesses" in a manner calculated to promote "the ascertainment of the truth" and to "avoid needless consumption of time." Fed.R.Evid. 611; see Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 955-56. "[Q]uestions for which the questioner cannot show a good faith basis" may be properly precluded. United States v. Concepcion, 983 F.2d 369, 391 (2d Cir. 1992). Additionally, otherwise relevant evidence may be excluded "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." Fed.R.Evid. 403. Insofar as the Government seeks to preclude mention of the bare fact that the arresting officers were members of the Bronx Street Crimes Unit at the time of the arrest, or that other Government witnesses were assigned to that unit in the past, the motion is denied. Such background information on individual witnesses can be helpful to the jury in forming an understanding of the professional history and experience of a particular witness called to testify as to actions taken in a law enforcement capacity, and may thereby assist the jury in weighing the witness's testimony. The probative value of such information is not outweighed substantially by danger of unfair prejudice or jury confusion.
Decision of the issues raised in the motion is reserved in all other respects. The central factual issue for trial in this case is whether Defendant possessed a firearm at the time in question. The jury must weigh the credibility of witness testimony relating to this issue in reaching its determination as to what occurred. Inquiries and admissible evidence concerning the practices of particular law enforcement units or departments may be relevant to these issues to the extent there is a good faith evidentiary basis for connection of the line of inquiry to the actions or credibility of a particular witness. In determining whether specific lines of cross-examination or evidentiary presentations going to the issues identified by the Government can be presented to the jury, the Court will look to whether the proponent has demonstrated a good faith basis, by a proffer of admissible evidence, for the relevance of the act, practice, trend or similar proposition to the question of the actions or credibility of the particular witness. The Court will also consider the provisions of Federal Rule of Evidence 403 as well as the Confontration Clause and trial management principles outlined above. The material thus far presented to the Court does not provide the requisite support for the proposition that the issues identified in the Government's motion are relevant to the actions or credibility of the individuals involved in this case. The Court's further consideration of these issues in the course of trial will permit the defense to proffer, and the Court to evaluate, the question of connection to the witnesses and issues in this case in the context of the factual presentation at trial. Counsel are reminded of the following admonition in the Court's Additional Trial Procedures for Criminal Cases:
Sidebars during jury trials are discouraged. Counsel are expected to anticipate any problems that might require argument and to raise those issues with the Court in advance of the time that the jury will be hearing the evidence.
The Court considered carefully the opening and responsive submissions of the Government and of the defense on the issues raised in the motion in limine, including an ex parte submission by the defense, in making the foregoing determinations. The briefing schedule, which was set at the final pre-trial conference when the Government disclosed its intention to make the instant motion, did not provide for reply papers; the Court has not, therefore, considered the Government's reply (received today) in formulating this decision. Any germane issues implicated by the reply can be taken up in connection with the determinations, if any, to be made during the course of the trial. SO ORDERED.