U.S. v. Hart

In prosecution on two bank robbery charges under 18 USC section 2113(a), Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's request to recall two government witnesses (whom defendant had not otherwise subpoenaed) during defendant's case-in-chief. Issue at trial arose as to whether police officer had seen defendant on bus following one robbery, and whether police officer had given inconsistent testimony. Dist. Ct. did not violate Confrontation Clause when denying defendant's request to recall said witnesses, where: (1) Dist. Ct. may impose reasonable limits on cross-examination; and (2) defendant had ample opportunity to cross-examine said witnesses during government's case-in-chief, and that defendant's proposed cross-examination would have elicited no new information than what defendant had elicited during his initial cross-examination of said witnesses. Also, denial of defendant's request to recall instant witness did not violate defendant's right to compulsory process, where proposed witnesses would not have provided material testimony, since said witnesses would only have provided testimony that was cumulative to what was already in record. Moreover, any potential error was harmless, where there was no reasonable likelihood that additional testimony would have altered jury's guilty verdict, where defendant had no answer to why his fingerprints were found on demand notes left at each bank.