Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Blackwell, 4th Cir. (1998)
United States v. Blackwell, 4th Cir. (1998)
No. 97-4103
08. Settle described how he and the defendant "used to meet in the
pool room, you know, and just talk, hangout, shoot pool" and how he
sold defendant an ounce or a half ounce of cocaine on three occasions
and bought an ounce back from him on one or two occasions. J.A. at
208-09. This government cross-examination of Settle about his drug
transactions with the defendant was permissible because it went to
Settle's credibility: if he had a prior drug-dealing relationship with
defendant, his testimony might be biased. Federal Rule of Evidence
611(b) specifically allows cross-examination to exceed the scope of
direct when it is about matters affecting the credibility of the witness.
See id. ("Cross-examination should be limited to the subject matter of
the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness."). Indeed, the district court had the discretion to allow crossexamination that exceeded direct even if it was not relevant to the witness' credibility. See id. ("The court may, in the exercise of discretion, permit inquiry into additional matters as if on direct
examination.").
In any event, even if the district court erred in allowing the government's cross-examination, Settle's testimony about a few drug transactions with defendant was harmless because six people had already
testified that they either received cocaine from the defendant or sold
cocaine to him during the charged conspiracy.2 See Appellee's Brief
at 4-6, 15.
Finally, the district court did not err in determining the amount of
drugs attributable to defendant for sentencing purposes. Defendant
argues only that the trial testimony relied upon by the district court
in determining the attributed amount of drugs was"unacceptably
vague in [its] description of the times and amounts of the controlled
substance involved," and was incredible because it was provided only
by witnesses who were testifying under plea bargains calling for "substantial assistance" and the different witnesses' testimony was contra_________________________________________________________________
2 The testimony of Craig Fountain alone established a drug amount of
over two kilos, J.A. at 303-04, and that of Douglas McCain established
a drug amount of four kilos, J.A. at 305. Defendant was also in possession of cocaine at the time of his arrest. Moreover, the drug transactions
described by Settle apparently were not counted in computing the
amount of drugs attributable to the defendant for sentencing. J.A. at 305.
5