Edwards

MEMORANDUM ***

Defendant William Edwards appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute on grounds that the district court wrongly excluded exculpatory and bias evidence and because of prosecutorial misconduct. For the following reasons, we affirm.

William Edwards first argues that the court’s disallowance of cross-examination of his co-offender and uncle, James Edwards, regarding James’s jail time exposure for a charge dismissed under his plea agreement impeded William’s ability to show James’s bias. We conclude that the district court’s curtailment of this testimony, if error, was harmless because the defendant had ample opportunity to expose James Edwards’ potential bias and motive in testifying. United States v. Schoneberg, 396 F.3d 1036, 1044 (9th Cir. 2005); United States v. Dadanian, 818 F.2d 1443, 1449 (9th Cir.1987), rev’d on reh’g on other grounds, 856 F.2d 1391 (1988).

William Edwards also asserts that the district court erred in failing to admit written exculpatory statements first signed, and then disavowed by James Edwards under exceptions to the hearsay rule. We review the district court’s refusal to admit evidence under an exception…