# United States v. Richard Anderson, United States of America v. Kenneth v. Greenwood

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · August 11, 1989 · 881 F.2d 1128

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479367

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Richard ANDERSON, Appellant; UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Kenneth v. GREENWOOD, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** August 11, 1989
- **Citations:** 881 F.2d 1128; 279 U.S. App. D.C. 413; 28 Fed. R. Serv. 942; 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12010; 1989 WL 89215
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Will
- **Judges:** Mikva, Williams, Will, Northern, Illinois
- **Cited by:** 76 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479367

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that “[t]he permissible scope of exploration on cross-examination is not curtailed by the absence of promises for leniency, for the defense may attempt to show government conduct which might have led a witness to believe that his prospects for lenient treatment by t…
- observing that “the [trial] court denied defense counsel’s request after observing [the witness’s] demeanor and 26 questioning her as to her past and current drug use”

## Opinion text

WILL, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
I agree that Anderson’s conviction must be reversed because defense counsel should have been permitted under the facts and circumstances here to cross-examine Barnes without having to make a preliminary showing of bias or duress. I write separately only because I believe that the trial judge has a responsibility once apprised of such facts and circumstances to be satisfied that the full extent of any possible bias or duress has been explored before exercising discretion as to the scope of any cross-examination. A preliminary voir dire by defense counsel of not only the witness but others having knowledge of the events, with judicial participation if necessary, to bring out all the facts is an essential predicate to the determination of the appropriate scope of cross-examination before the jury.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9479367. Public record. Not legal advice.