U.S. v. Trent

In prosecution on series of drug charges that stemmed from defendant’s role in selling drugs to victim who died as result of ingestion of said drugs, Dist. Ct. did not err in precluding defendant’s counsel from asking two witnesses who had pleaded guilty to similar charges and who were testifying as govt. witnesses about exact length of their mandatory minimum 20-year sentences. While defendant argued that Dist. Ct.’s ruling impinged on his right to confrontation with respect to said witnesses, Dist. Ct. could properly place instant restriction on defendant’s cross-examination since information about defendant’s potential sentence (that stemmed from knowledge about witnesses’ sentences) might confuse or mislead juries in deciding defendant’s guilt or innocence. Moreover, defendant was able to elicit from witnesses that they had “substantial mandatory minimum” and that they were testifying under plea agreements. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing govt. undercover agent to testify that defendant’s voice was recorded in phone conversation, where said agent had opportunity to become familiar with defendant’s voice at meeting prior to date of phone conversation.