context: Counsel next raises the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by denying defense counsel an opportunity to impeach a government witness through cross examination on the matter of the witness's use of aliases. Because the court properly determined that the witness's use of the alias was remote in time from the present offense, and because ample evidence was admitted to impeach the witness, we determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 882 F.2d 1444, 1446
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that a district court's refusal to allow cross examination as to certain prior conduct was not reversible error where the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Kallin, 50 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that a reviewing court can only reverse for abuse of discretion if it has a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in reaching its conclusion, or based its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law); Cf. United States v. Jackson, 882 F.2d 1444, 1446 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that a district court’s refusal to allow cross examination as to certain prior conduct was not reversible error where the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 50 F.3d 689, 693
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that a reviewing court can only reverse for abuse of discretion if it has a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in reaching its conclusion, or based its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Kallin, 50 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir.1995) (stating that a reviewing court can only reverse for abuse of discretion if it has a definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in reaching its conclusion, or based its decision on an erroneous conclusion of law); Cf. United States v. Jackson, 882 F.2d 1444, 1446 (9th Cir.1989) (holding that a district court’s refusal to allow cross examination as to certain prior conduct was not reversible error where the jury had sufficient information to appraise the bias and motives of the witness).