United States v. James Kristofferson, United States of America v. Robert G. Rutz

990 F.2d 1263 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James KRISTOFFERSON, Defendant-Appellant. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert G. RUTZ, Defendant-Appellant. Nos. 91-10348, 91-10406. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 8, 1993. * Decided March 18, 1993. Before GOODWIN, NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 The appeals in these two consolidated cases challenge the trial judge's rulings on cross-examination. Kristofferson appeals because he claims that the trial judge improperly restricted his cross-examination of a prosecution witness. Rutz appeals because he claims that the trial judge should have let him take the stand without being subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. Both appellants misconceive the discretionary control of cross-examination by the trial court. 3 Kristofferson was permitted wide latitude in his substantial…