{"id":2569,"date":"2008-10-22T07:33:31","date_gmt":"2008-10-21T06:11:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2008-10-21T06:11:00","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=2569","title":{"rendered":"Defendant failed to show his cross at a Franks<\/em> hearing was not related to his direct"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant’s searching cross examination at a Franks<\/a> hearing was alleged to have a chilling effect on his testimony at trial. He did not show, however, that the cross exceeded the scope of direct. United States v. Vaughn, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82950 (E.D. Cal. September 2, 2008):<\/p>\n

The defendant has failed to identify any particular subjects or questions inquired into by government counsel during the suppression hearing that were allegedly beyond the scope of the testimony he willingly gave or were not otherwise relevant to Defendant’s credibility at the Franks<\/a> hearing. Arredondo v. Ortiz, 365 F.3d 778, 783 (9th Cir. 2004) “There is no question that a witness’s credibility is properly subject to exploration once he takes the stand.”). As the Ninth Circuit explained in United States v. Vasquez, 858 F.2d 1387, 1392 (9th Cir. 1988):<\/p>\n

Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b) commits the scope of cross-examination to the trial judge’s discretion. See United States v. Miranda-Uriarte, 649 F.2d 1345, 1353 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Green, 648 F.2d 587, 594 (9th Cir. 1981). In exercising this discretion, the trial court may permit cross-examination “as to all matters reasonably related to the issues [the defendant] put in dispute by his testimony on direct.” Miranda-Uriarte, 649 F.2d at 1353; Green, 648 F.2d at 594 (same).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In Vasquez, the defendant argued that because his direct testimony addressed only the events surrounding his delivery of five kilograms of cocaine to the undercover officer, it was an abuse of the court’s discretion to permit cross-examination concerning the 25 kilograms of cocaine, paraphernalia and $85,000 in cash found in his apartment. Vasquez, 858 F.2d at 1392. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, finding instead that because the defendant’s testimony addressed the events leading up to his arrest, including the time he left his apartment and whether he was accompanied at the time, the items found in his apartment were “reasonably related” to Vasquez’s direct testimony. Vasquez, 858 F.2d at 1392.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2569","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2569","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2569"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2569\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2569"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2569"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2569"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}