Confrontation Clause; The district court’s refusal to order production of a government witness’s criminal file; The “cross-examination guarantee”; Limits on cross-examination; Boggs v Collins

The court joined several other circuits by holding “that the Confrontation Clause does not grant a defendant a pretrial right to compelled discovery of documents that might assist” in cross-examining a government witness. It also held that the district court did not violate defendant-Taylor’s right of confrontation by limiting his cross-examination. A jury convicted Taylor of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and FIP. The court previously reversed the convictions after determining that the district court violated the Confrontation Clause and remanded for a new trial. A new jury convicted him again. Taylor now again raised a Confrontation Clause claim on appeal, arguing that he was improperly limited when cross-examining a government witness (H). When he was unable to secure information about H’s alleged criminal activity from state entities, he filed a renewed motion to show cause as to why they should not be held in contempt for failing to produce the court file, asserting he was entitled to the documents under the Confrontation Clause. The government moved in limine to limit the scope of Taylor’s cross-examination of H. The district court granted that motion in part and denied Taylor’s renewed motion. He argued on appeal that it erred by refusing to order the production of H’s criminal file. The court noted that the “right to confrontation does not create a concomitant right to pretrial discovery.” It explained that Taylor could still cross-examine H about his record without seeing the file itself. As to his claim that the district court’s limitations on cross-examination violated his confrontation rights, “‘[t]he key issue is whether the jury had enough information’ about the witness’s motives for testifying ‘despite the limits placed on cross-examination.’” The court applies a three-step process to analyze whether the right of confrontation was violated by limits on cross-examination. Here, it found it did not need to go beyond the first step. “The district court did not err by prohibiting Taylor from cross-examining [H] about the underlying facts and circumstances of his 2022 drug-possession conviction and his 2023” FIP charge. Taylor was allowed to cross-examine to establish H’s “bias, prejudice, or motive to testify[.]” The district court did not bar him from asking H “about his possible status as a suspect” and it gave him “significant leeway in” cross-examining H. He “took full advantage” of it. Affirmed.