United States v. Michael Nickolson

MEMORANDUM

Michael Ray Nickolson (“Nickolson”) appeals his conviction as a felon in possession of a firearm, arguing the district court erred, individually and cumulatively, when it excluded police reports and a sworn declaration the arresting officers had prepared, failed to give a proposed jury instruction regarding police officer credibility, and did not correct the prosecutor’s misstatement during closing argument. We affirm because any error was harmless in light of the defense’s ability to read from the contested documents and argue their contents to the jury.

A. Evidentiary Rulings

In excluding Officer Dias’s sworn declaration, the district court correctly found extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement admissible to impeach under Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b). The district court was correct even despite the witness having conceded the inconsistency on the stand because “[ejxtrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is more persuasive to a jury than a witness’s acknowledgment of inconsistencies in a prior statement.” United States v. Strother, 49 F.3d 869, 876 (2d Cir.1995); see also Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 420-21 , 73 S.Ct. 369 , 97…