U.S. v. Doe, 80-1485
| Decision Date | 19 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1485,80-1485 |
| Parties | 8 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1526 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Peter Berzins, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellant.
Francis J. Diskin, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., for the U. S.
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Washington.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, TANG, Circuit Judge, and HEMPHILL, * District Judge.
Appellant John Doe 1 was convicted of conspiracy to import heroin and related substantive offenses. The government relied in part on the testimony of Richard Roe, a courier for the heroin importation scheme. On direct examination Roe testified that a quantity of heroin was delivered to him in Bangkok, Thailand by appellant's wife and that he carried it from Bangkok to Seoul, Korea as a passenger on a commercial airline. He testified that he saw and spoke with Mrs. Doe on the flight from Bangkok to Seoul. The prosecutor then asked Roe whether he had made any arrangement to be contacted by Mrs. Doe while in the United States. Roe answered that he had given Mrs. Doe two phone numbers at which he could be reached.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked if Roe had had a conversation with Mrs. Doe during the flight. After eliciting an affirmative answer, counsel inquired about details of the conversation. He then asked if there had been any discussion about appellant. The government objected. Defense counsel informed the court that Roe would testify that Mrs. Doe had said that her husband knew nothing about her drug importation activities. The trial court excluded the proffered testimony.
Appellant argues that the attempted cross-examination was within the scope of direct; that the government had "opened the door" with respect to Roe's in-flight conversation with Mrs. Doe and the defense should have been permitted to elicit on cross-examination portions of the conversation favorable to appellant.
The government had asked only one question relating to Roe's conversation with Mrs. Doe on the plane: Roe's answer did not implicate appellant. The testimony appellant sought to elicit on cross-examination was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swayze v. U.S.
...v. Beltran-Rios, 878 F.2d 1208, 1212 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Segall, 833 F.2d 144, 148 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Doe, 656 F.2d 411, 412 (9th Cir.1981), or to pursue an otherwise improper line of inquiry that the defendant initiated either in his opening statement or on direc......
-
U.S. v. Owens, 95-10456
...due on the car loans did not leave a misleading impression that he never paid off the balance due on the loans. United States v. Doe, 656 F.2d 411, 412 (9th Cir.1981). III Owens argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence certain loan documents in Guardia......
-
Trial Proceedings and Motions
...evidence on cross-examination to “cure” irrelevant evidence that was improperly admitted on direct examination. United States v. Doe, 656 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1981). To “cure” the irrelevant evidence improperly admitted on direct examination, the evidence from cross-examination must relate sp......
-
Trial proceedings and motions
...evidence on cross-examination to “cure” irrelevant evidence that was improperly admitted on direct examination. United States v. Doe, 656 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1981). To “cure” the irrelevant evidence improperly admitted on direct exam-ination, the evidence from cross-examination must relate s......
-
Trial Proceedings and Motions
...was improperly admitted on direct examination. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND MOTIONS §220 TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND MOTIONS 2-32 United States v. Doe, 656 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1981). To “cure” the irrelevant evidence improperly admitted on direct examination, the evidence from cross-examination must rela......
-
Trial proceedings and motions
...evidence on cross-examination to “cure” irrelevant evidence that was improperly admitted on direct examination. United States v. Doe, 656 F.2d 411 (9th Cir. 1981). To “cure” the irrelevant evidence improperly admitted on direct exam-ination, the evidence from cross-examination must relate s......