United States v. Ronald William Harvey
547 F.2d 720, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 6087 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of a witness's bias is not a collateral issue, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove a motive to testify falsely, provided a proper foundation is laid by affording the witness an opportunity on cross-examination to explain or deny the circumstances suggesting bias.
Facts:
- On April 22, 1975, a man dressed as a woman robbed the Main-High branch of the Marine Midland Bank-Western.
- Priscilla Martin, who had known the defendant for nineteen years, was the sole witness to identify him, testifying she saw him near the bank on the day of the robbery.
- Martin's description of the man she saw differed on several key points from the description of the robber given by the bank teller, Mrs. Florida Strickland.
- The defendant's mother, Catherine Harvey, was prepared to testify that she had a conversation with Martin in a hospital.
- During that conversation, Martin allegedly accused the defendant of fathering her child and refusing to support it.
- Martin also allegedly told Harvey that her husband had beaten her and broken her leg upon learning of the situation.
- Harvey was further prepared to testify that Martin stated she would 'take revenge' on the defendant for not 'owning up' to the child.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with bank robbery and bank larceny.
- The case was tried before a jury in a federal district court (the trial court).
- During the trial, the defense sought to introduce the testimony of Catherine Harvey to impeach the government's key witness, Priscilla Martin, for bias.
- The trial judge excluded the proffered testimony, deeming it 'collateral.'
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty on both counts, and a judgment of conviction was entered.
- The defendant (appellant) appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing the trial court's evidentiary ruling was reversible error.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court commit reversible error by completely excluding extrinsic evidence offered to show a key government identification witness's potential bias, where that witness's credibility is critical to the prosecution's case?
Opinions:
Majority - Kelleher, District Judge
Yes. A trial court commits reversible error by excluding such evidence because bias is not a collateral issue, and a defendant must be afforded the opportunity to present facts that could lead a jury to conclude a witness is hostile. The law permits the introduction of extrinsic evidence, such as the testimony of another witness, to prove facts showing bias. Before introducing such evidence, a proper foundation must be laid under Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b) by giving the witness an 'opportunity to explain or deny' the circumstances. Here, defense counsel laid a sufficient foundation by asking Martin on cross-examination if she had ever accused the defendant of fathering her child or threatened revenge, which she denied. Because Martin was the sole identification witness, her credibility was paramount, and completely cutting off the defendant's ability to probe her potential motive to lie was a prejudicial error that denied him a fair trial.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the principle that witness bias is always relevant and is not a 'collateral' matter that can be summarily excluded. It demonstrates that under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a defendant has a substantial right to impeach a witness by introducing extrinsic evidence of bias, as long as a foundational requirement is met. The court's flexible interpretation of the foundation requirement in FRE 613(b) prevents a mechanical application of the rule from undermining a defendant's core right to confrontation. This decision serves as a strong reminder to trial courts that their discretion to exclude evidence under FRE 403 is limited when the evidence goes to a critical witness's motive to lie, especially in cases hinging on identification testimony.
