U.S. v. Whitmore, 03-3022.
| Decision Date | 14 June 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-3022.,03-3022. |
| Citation | 384 F.3d 836 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee v. Gerald F. WHITMORE, Appellant |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Before: HENDERSON and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.
Upon consideration of the appellee's petition for rehearing, filed April 19, 2004 and the appellant's response thereto, it is
ORDERED that the petition for rehearing be denied. The government's petition for rehearing "does not seek to change the panel's ultimate disposition of this appeal" nor does it "challenge the panel's conclusion that the district court erred in excluding the entire line of cross-examination concerning Soto's prior testimony." Pet. at 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the government "agrees that on remand Officer Soto can properly be cross-examined concerning the truth or falsity of that prior testimony." Id.
The petition does question, however, the extent to which Whitmore may cross-examine Soto regarding that prior testimony on retrial in light of the prohibition contained in Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) against using "extrinsic evidence" to establish "[s]pecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting the witness' character for truthfulness." As the government concedes, it has not previously "brief[ed] the issue of whether the proposed cross-examination of Officer Soto was precluded by Fed.R.Evid. 608." Pet. at 7 n. 4. See also United States v. Whitmore, 359 F.3d 609, 619 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.2004). Nevertheless, it now draws our attention, for the first time, to an Advisory Committee note to Rule 608(b) that became effective on December 1, 2003, after oral argument in this case. The note reads as follows:
It should be noted that the extrinsic evidence prohibition of Rule 608(b) bars any reference to the consequences that a witness might have suffered as a result of an alleged bad act. For example, Rule 608(b) prohibits counsel from mentioning that a witness was suspended or disciplined for the conduct that is the subject of impeachment, when that conduct is offered only to prove the character of the witness. See United States v. Davis, 183 F.3d 231, 257 n. 12 (3d Cir.1999) (). See also Stephen A. Saltzburg, Impeaching the Witness: Prior Bad Acts and Extrinsic Evidence, 7 Crim. Just. 28, 31 (Winter 1993) ("counsel should not be permitted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coleman
...consequences, which are extrinsic evidence. See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b), Advisory Committee's Note to 2003 amend.; United States v. Whitmore , 384 F.3d 836, 836–37 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ; United States v. Davis , 183 F.3d 231, 256, 257 n.12 (3d Cir. 1999) ; Deary v. City of Gloucester , 9 F.3d 191,......
-
Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Semonite
...about an Advisory Committee Note for the Federal Rules of Evidence was improperly raised for the first time on appeal. 384 F.3d 836, 836-37 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In Bryant v. Gates , the Court found an as-applied Free Speech challenge to be waived because it was not raised in either the distric......
-
Waymire v. Miami Cnty. Sheriff's Office
...R. Evid. 608, Advisory Committee Notes; see also United States v. Davis, 183 F.3d 231, 257 n.12 (3d Cir. 1999); United States v. Whitmore, 384 F.3d 836, 836 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Evidence Rule 608(b) does, in the Court's discretion, permit one to inquire of a witness on cross-examination about ......
-
U.S. v. Dawson, 04-2557.
...appears only in the quotation from Professor Saltzburg's article. The weight properly given to such a reference is obscure. Davis and Whitmore do not dispel the obscurity. They do not distinguish clearly between presenting extrinsic evidence that the witness was found not credible and, in a......