## Facts

- Mark Bozovich was charged in the Northern District of Indiana with conspiracy to distribute heroin.
- At trial, Bozovich testified in his own defense and presented himself as a long-time heroin addict rather than a participant in heroin distribution.
- On direct examination, Bozovich testified at length about his addiction and the ways it damaged his life financially and otherwise, supporting his theory that his conduct reflected personal use, not a distribution conspiracy.
- On cross-examination, the government asked Bozovich about statements he previously made to Drug Enforcement Administration agents.
- In those statements, Bozovich identified individuals who supplied heroin to him and his acquaintances and described the amounts of heroin he typically purchased.
- Bozovich objected that this questioning exceeded the scope of his direct examination under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b), but the district court overruled the objection and allowed the questioning.
- The jury convicted Bozovich of the heroin-distribution conspiracy.
- The district court sentenced Bozovich to 235 months’ imprisonment after finding a quantity of heroin attributable to him for purposes of calculating the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.
- Bozovich appealed, seeking a new trial based on the scope of cross-examination and, alternatively, a lower sentence based on the drug-quantity calculation.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b) by allowing the government to cross-examine Bozovich about his prior statements to DEA agents identifying heroin suppliers and typical purchase amounts after he testified on direct about his addiction and related life circumstances.
2. Whether the district court clearly erred in determining the quantity of heroin attributable to Bozovich for Sentencing Guidelines purposes, supporting a 235-month sentence.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Bozovich’s conviction.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Bozovich’s 235-month sentence.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 611(b) because the cross-examination about Bozovich’s DEA statements was reasonably related to the substance and theory of his direct testimony and also bore on credibility.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in its drug-quantity finding for Guidelines purposes.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 611(b), cross-examination generally should not exceed the subject matter of direct examination and matters affecting the witness’s credibility.
- Trial judges have broad discretion to control the mode and order of examining witnesses, including deciding whether cross-examination is reasonably related to the direct examination.
- When a defendant testifies to advance a defense narrative (such as “addict, not distributor”), the government may test that narrative on cross-examination with related facts, including prior statements that bear on the defendant’s claimed role and the scale of the conduct.
- Sentencing findings on drug quantity are reviewed for clear error; the district court may draw reasonable inferences from record evidence and credibility determinations when attributing drug quantities under the Guidelines.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed both the conviction and the 235-month sentence because Bozovich’s direct testimony about his heroin addiction and claimed noninvolvement in distribution allowed the government to question him about his prior DEA statements identifying suppliers and typical purchase amounts as reasonably related cross-examination under Rule 611(b), and because the district court’s heroin-quantity determination for Guidelines sentencing was supported by the record and was not clearly erroneous.


United States v. Bozovich, 782 F.3d 814 (2015)