Federal Evidence Review

The Seventh Circuit revisited the necessity of having a good faith basis to question a witness about a particular subject in United States v. Taylor, 522 F.3d 731 (7th Cir. 2008).

During a traffic stop, crack cocaine was seized in a car. At trial, the passenger in the defendant’s car testified for the government and told the jury that the defendant indicated he was planning to sell drugs during their trip. Defense counsel sought to cross-examination the passenger concerning whether the government had quashed state warrants before trial in exchange for her cooperation and testimony. Defense counsel had learned that the passenger had an outstanding state warrants that had been quashed and suspected that a deal had been made for the passenger’s testimony. Outside the presence of the jury, the trial court held a hearing on the issue and the passenger testified that she did not know why the warrants had been quashed. The investigator also explained that no promises had been made to quash the warrants. The prosecutor informed the judge that there was no federal government role in quashing the warrants. The defendant was convicted on the drug charges and sentenced to 355 months in prison.

The Seventh Circuit agreed that the cross-examination questioning was inadmissible since there was no good faith basis to suggest the government arranged for the quashing of the warrant in exchange for the witness’s testimony. As the circuit explained, "You are not permitted to cross-examine a witness about a particular topic without a good-faith belief that the answers will be helpful to your case, as distinct from hoping that the question alone will insinuate a helpful answer (‘are you not testifying against the defendant because you believe the prosecutor helped to quash the state warrants against you?’). If there is an objection at trial to a question asked on cross-examination, on the ground that there is no good-faith basis for it, and at a sidebar the judge so finds, he must sustain the objection. That in effect is what the judge did here, when the hearing revealed the shot-in-the-dark nature of the proposed cross-examination." Taylor, 522 F.3d at 736 (citing United States v. Adames, 56 F.3d 737, 745 & n.5 (7th Cir. 1995) (trial court properly excluded questioning of witness about murder where there was no good faith basis for the question); United States v. Guay, 108 F.3d 545, 552-53 (4th Cir. 1997) (“A cross-examiner inquiring into specific instances of a defendant's misconduct must have a good-faith factual basis for such questions.”)).