Unpublished Disposition, 927 F.2d 611 (9th Cir. 1991)

MEMORANDUM^** 

The appeal questions whether the district court abused its discretion by: (1) refusing to ask venire members whether they would be unduly influenced by the testimony of law enforcement officers, (2) refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine the law enforcement officer about whether complaints of excessive force had been lodged against him, and (3) striking testimony of a defense witness as irrelevant.

The scope of voir dire examination is "within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless the procedures used or questions propounded are so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion." United States v. Baldwin, 607 F.2d 1295, 1297 (9th Cir. 1979). It is wholly within the judge's discretion to reject supplemental questions proposed by counsel if the voir dire is otherwise reasonably sufficient to test the jury for bias or partiality. Id.

A district court's refusal to ask jury venire members if they would be unduly influenced by the testimony of law enforcement officers constitutes reversible error only where the reviewing court finds an abuse of discretion in light of the following factors:

[T]he importance of the government agent's testimony to the case as a whole; the extent to which the question concerning the venireperson's attitude toward government agents is covered in other questions on voir dire and on the charge to the jury; the extent to which the credibility of the government agent-witness is put into issue; and the extent to which the testimony of the government agent is corroborated by non-agent witnesses.

Id. at 1298. Under the peculiar facts present in United States v. Contreras-Castro, 825 F.2d 185 (9th Cir. 1987), we found an abuse of discretion. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no such abuse of discretion in this case. The trial judge's voir dire and charge was extensive, probing, and ensured that the jury impaneled was impartial. Rosales-Lopez v. United States, 451 U.S. 182, 188 n. 6, 189 (1981); cf. Baldwin, 607 F.2d at 1298 (decisive factor was that judge declined to ask both whether jurors were biased in favor of law enforcement testimony and whether any juror was related to any of the prospective witnesses).

The record also compels rejection of Barbosa's other assignments of error. It was within the trial court's sound discretion to determine (1) that the cross-examination Barbosa sought was irrelevant as well as degrading to Agent Carter and (2) that Olivas's testimony was irrelevant. United States v. Bonnano, 852 F.2d 434, 439 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1016 (1989); United States v. Tolliver, 665 F.2d 1005, 1008 (11th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 935 (1982).

AFFIRMED.