United States of America v. Eddie Patterson

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDDIE PATTERSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-10152
D.C. No.
2:15-cr-01577-DGC-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 7, 2019**
Phoenix, Arizona
Before: HAWKINS, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Eddie Patterson (“Patterson”) appeals his conviction for sexual abuse
of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 2243(a), and 2246. He contends he was
deprived of his right under the Confrontation Clause to recross-examine a witness.
We find no constitutional violation and affirm his conviction.
FILED
FEB 12 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

Recross is not a constitutional right, and district courts have wide discretion
whether to allow it. See Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986). A
defendant is entitled to recross only if material new matter is elicited on redirect
examination. United States v Baker, 10 F.3d 1374, 1404–05 (9th Cir. 1993). The
information elicited here was neither new nor material. In cross, the defense had
suggested that surely if the victim had talked to a social worker for three hours, certain
details about the charged crime would have come up. In redirect, the government
placed the interview in context by eliciting testimony that the worker was also talking
to the victim about matters not involving Patterson during those three hours. The
defense had put the interview at issue and was aware of its contents when questioning
the victim on cross. Thus, this information was not new or surprising to the defense.
Nor was the additional information significant or material in the context of the
case. The victim’s interview with the social worker was a relatively small piece of the
overall case. The "new" information did not detract from the multiple inconsistencies
in details accurately pointed out by defense counsel in its extensive cross-examination
about this and other interviews given by the victim shortly after the incident. Thus,
there was no violation of Patterson’s rights under the Confrontation Clause.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --