United States V Moore

Key Facts

Issues

• Defendant requested permission to introduce extrinsic evidence if a witness committed perjury during cross-examination. The court deferred this decision, noting Rule 608(b) prohibits extrinsic evidence for truthfulness-related impeachment but permits it for other grounds like bias. The government agreed to unseal filings but requested further proffers if extrinsic evidence were needed at trial to avoid a 'trial within a trial.'
• The court evaluated four sustained misconduct incidents against officer witnesses: (1) Officer Minzak's improper access of an arrest report, (2) Officer Joseph's warrantless search, (3) Officer Arnone's failure to verify an arrest report, and (4) Lieutenant Hogans' supervisory negligence in releasing prisoner property. The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination for most incidents, finding minimal relevance to truthfulness, but denied it for Officer Arnone's report inaccuracy due to its potential bearing on credibility.
• The court addressed whether defendant could cross-examine three MPD officers (Minzak, Thomas, Del Po) about pending investigations to demonstrate potential bias. The government argued such cross-examination should be limited to the witness's knowledge of the investigation and its consequences, while defendant sought broader inquiry. The court granted the motion in part, allowing limited cross-examination about pending investigations but restricting details to avoid prejudice and confusion.

Holdings

• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Lieutenant Kenyon Hogans regarding his 2025 supervisory neglect in releasing prisoner property, as it concerns administrative oversight rather than truthfulness.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Brandon Joseph regarding his 2022 warrantless search incident, as it reflects judgment issues rather than dishonesty or lack of veracity.
• The court denied the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Nicole Arnone regarding her 2025 incident of submitting an unsworn arrest report with unverified information, as it bears relevance to her credibility as the sworn affiant in this case.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Mark Minzak regarding his 2023 incident of improperly accessing a colleague's arrest report, as it does not relate to his character for truthfulness.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination on other sustained incidents (e.g., paperwork errors, lost property, training no-shows) after the defendant conceded their minimal relevance to truthfulness.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officers Thomas and Del Po regarding their disciplinary incidents (investigative oversight and work-hour violations), as they lack probative value for truthfulness.

Remedies

• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of police witnesses about incidents involving preventable accidents, bodycam policy violations, training/court no-shows, lost property, and uses of force. The defendant conceded these had minimal probative value for truthfulness.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Mark Minzak about Incident #23001770, where he improperly accessed a colleague's arrest report out of curiosity. The court ruled this incident lacked probative value for truthfulness and risked unnecessary delay.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Lieutenant Kenyon Hogans about Incident #24004446, where he failed to ensure proper property release procedures. The ruling emphasized the incident's relevance to supervision, not truthfulness.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Lieutenant Hogans about Incident #23001427, where a search warrant lacked an operational plan leading to a suicide. The court deferred to the government's sealing request and deemed it inflammatory.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Augustus Thomas about Incident #19000797, where he omitted identifying a female in a civilian complaint. The court deemed this unrelated to truthfulness and a service error.
• The court denied the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Nicole Arnone about Incident #24004446, where she submitted an unsworn arrest report with unverified content. The court found this had probative value for her credibility as the Gerstein affiant.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Kirk Del Po about Incidents #16000081 and #15000504, involving miscalculated work hours. The court ruled these violations concerned administrative compliance, not truthfulness.
• The court granted the government's motion to preclude cross-examination of Officer Brandon Joseph about Incident #22004256, involving a warrantless search in 2022. The court found the conduct unrelated to truthfulness and potentially confusing to the jury.

Legal Principles

• The court conducted a Rule 403 balancing test, excluding evidence where its probative value was outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, or wasted time. This applied to sustained misconduct not involving dishonesty, as it could distract juries from core issues or inflame emotions without addressing credibility.
• The court applied the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, balancing the defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses against the need for reasonable limits. It emphasized that cross-examination must be probative of a witness's credibility or bias, while also considering factors like harassment, prejudice, and witness safety under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
• Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) was central to the court's analysis. The rule allows cross-examination about past misconduct only if it is probative of a witness's character for truthfulness, typically involving deceit, fraud, or falsification. The court excluded evidence unrelated to veracity and limited extrinsic evidence unless used for non-character impeachment grounds (e.g., bias, contradiction).

Precedent Name

• United States v. Leake
• United States v. Wilson
• Delaware v. Van Arsdall
• United States v. Whitmore
• United States v. Webster
• United States v. Tucker
• United States v. Lindemann
• United States v. Beltran-Garcia
• United States v. Alston
• United States v. Jones
• United States v. Haggett
• United States v. Harris
• Glaze v. Childs

Cited Statute

• Federal Rules of Evidence
• United States Code

Judge Name

Passage Text

• It cannot be gainsaid that 'not every instance of officer misconduct is 'probative' of an officer's 'character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.' United States v. Harris, 551 F. App'x 699, 705-06 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting FED. R. EVID. 608(b)). 'Rather, the Rule authorizes inquiry only into instances of misconduct akin to 'perjury, fraud, swindling, forgery, bribery, and embezzlement.'
• For the reasons above, the government's Motion in Limine to Preclude and Limit Cross Examination of Police Witnesses is granted in part and denied in part. See Gov't's Mot., ECF No. 39. Specifically, defendant will be allowed to question Officers Minzak, Thomas, and Del Po about their pending investigations... Defendant will also be allowed to question Officer Arnone about Incident #24004446. Questioning related to the other sustained incidents submitted in the government's motion, ECF No. 39, is barred.
• The probative value of this incident under Rule 608 is a closer call, but tips in favor of admission. As defendant observes, Officer Arnone 'presented a report to other investigators and prosecutors bearing her signature that included inaccurate information she failed to independently verify.' Def.'s Supp. at 6. The government, on the other hand, overstates in contending that Officer Arnone's 'role as the Gerstein officer in the instant case bears no relevance to this sustained finding' as 'no portion of the investigation... suggests Officer Arnone acted dishonestly.' Id. (emphasis added). Even absent an express finding of dishonest behavior, Officer Arnone's failure to verify the veracity of an arrest report before submission rises above what the government deems a mere 'documentation error.' Gov't's Reply at 9.