## Facts

- Francisco Cabrera Garza was indicted in the Eastern District of Texas for conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute multiple controlled substances, including MDMA, methamphetamine, cocaine, and GHB.
- At a July 2003 jury trial, Garza was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment; the district court later granted a new trial due to a missing portion of the trial transcript.
- At a July 2004 retrial, Garza was again convicted and sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment, a $5,000 fine, and five years’ supervised release.
- The government’s proof relied heavily on Dallas Police Officer Barry Ragsdale’s testimony that Garza confessed involvement in the conspiracy.
- To impeach Ragsdale, Garza sought to introduce:
  - Opinion testimony from a former investigator (Michael Grimes) that Ragsdale had a character for untruthfulness, based on a brief investigation years earlier, limited personal interactions, and subjective “physical tells,” despite Grimes’s conclusion that evidence was insufficient to prosecute Ragsdale.
  - Expert testimony from a document examiner (Linda James) that the witness signatures on Garza’s confession and consent-to-search forms were not genuine, based on photocopies rather than originals and without a produced written report.
- The district court excluded both Grimes’s opinion testimony and James’s expert testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding Grimes’s opinion testimony attacking Ragsdale’s character for truthfulness under Federal Rule of Evidence 608(a).
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding James’s document-examination testimony based on reliability concerns and expert-disclosure noncompliance.
3. Whether the sentence required vacatur under United States v. Booker because the record was ambiguous as to whether the district court treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Grimes’s Rule 608(a) opinion testimony due to an inadequate foundation and limited probative value.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding James’s expert testimony due to reliability concerns (work from copies) and failure to comply with expert-disclosure requirements.
- The court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the sentencing record was ambiguous regarding whether the Guidelines were applied as advisory after Booker.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 608(a) opinion evidence about a witness’s character for truthfulness must rest on sufficient, reliable familiarity; a minimally supported opinion grounded in brief, dated investigation and subjective demeanor assessments may be excluded.
- District courts have broad discretion under evidentiary and case-management rules to exclude expert testimony that lacks reliable methodology (including reliance on copies rather than originals) or violates expert-disclosure obligations.
- When the sentencing record does not clearly show the district court treated the Guidelines as advisory post-Booker, and the court’s alternative sentencing statements do not remove that ambiguity, appellate relief may include vacatur and remand for resentencing.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit upheld the trial court’s discretionary evidentiary exclusions aimed at impeaching a key law-enforcement witness and challenging signature authenticity, but it vacated and remanded for resentencing because the record did not clearly demonstrate advisory-Guidelines sentencing consistent with Booker.


United States v. Garza, 448 F.3d 294 (5th Cir. 2006)