Edwards

dissenting in part.

I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the district court properly excluded evidence of Officer Coats’ dishonesty. Coats, while off duty, was pulled over by a police officer who asked him if he had been drinking. Coats initially denied it but later tested positive for alcohol and pled guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence. The majority concludes that Coats’ prior false statement to another police officer bears little on his credibility. Given the importance of Coats’ credibility to this case and the context in which the false statement was made, I cannot agree.

Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) provides that “specific instances of the conduct of a witness” may be inquired into on cross-examination if they concern the “witness’ character for truthfulness or untruthfulness” and the court deems them probative. Here, Coats’ testimony — and therefore his credibility — was central to the government’s case. Key questions before the jury were whether Edwards actually had the gun that Coats picked up from the storage room of the store and why the gun did not have Edwards’ fingerprints on it. Importantly, underpinning the case was the…

MEMORANDUM *

Rudolph Edwards appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922 (b), and his resulting 30-month sentence. Edwards argues that his conviction should be overturned because of limitations the trial judge placed on his cross-examination of *956 the two arresting officers, the government’s primary witnesses. Edwards also argues that the trial judge erroneously deemed him ineligible for a one-level downward departure based upon extraordinary childhood abuse. We affirm the conviction, but remand on the sentence.

During pretrial discovery, Edwards learned that the officers who arrested him, who would later be the government’s primary witnesses, had both been convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (“DUI”). Edwards also learned that one of the officers, when initially stopped before his arrest, had lied about the fact that he had been drinking. Before trial commenced, the government obtained an in limine ruling, precluding Edwards from questioning the officers about their convictions. Edwards claims this was error.

We review a district court’s decision to limit cross-examination for abuse of discretion. United…