U.S. v. Jones

In prosecution on unlawful possession of firearm charge, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in granting govt.’s motion in limine seeking to preclude defendant from cross-examining police officer in regard to officer’s testimony in unrelated case, which resulted in finding by magistrate judge that said officer was unable to identify culprit as he had claimed. Dist. Ct. could properly find that evidence regarding officer’s prior testimony was irrelevant and would have been confusing to jury, since magistrate judge in prior case never found that officer had lied or was untruthful when giving prior testimony. As such, exclusion of such evidence did not implicate Confrontation Clause. Also, prosecutor did not improperly vouch for credibility of said officer during closing arguments, even though prosecutor stated that officer’s “currency is [his] credibility,” and that “I think it strains credulity and common sense” to not believe said officer. Nothing prosecutor said brought in outside evidence or spoke to her personal belief in truthfulness of officer. Moreover, prosecutor may properly invite jury to use common sense in drawing conclusion that officer was credible.