Criminal: Right to Confrontation-Cross Examination-Victim’s Behavior

Where a defendant in a sex-trafficking case argued that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when it restricted his cross-examination of a victim, the defendant was able to mention inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony and further examination would not have given the jury a significantly different impression, and the court also did not err when it excluded evidence that the victims continued to exchange sexual acts for crack cocaine while the defendant was in custody because the defendant did not notify the victims of his use of such evidence, and the judgment was affirmed because the defendant also failed to show error in the admission of evidence that the defendant supplied the victims with drugs and alcohol because it was probative to show that he groomed and controlled their behavior.

Judgment is affirmed.

U.S. v. Betts (MLW No.72469/Case No. 17-3592 – 9 pages) (U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit, Shepherd, J.) Appealed from U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa, J.