## Facts

- McKenna was tried in federal district court on criminal charges brought by the United States.
- The government called Bruno as a witness at trial.
- During Bruno’s testimony, the district court prohibited McKenna’s counsel from using leading questions when cross-examining Bruno.
- In response to that limitation on the form of questioning, McKenna’s counsel chose not to cross-examine Bruno at all.
- McKenna was convicted.
- After the verdict, McKenna moved for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, arguing that the restriction on leading questions violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront adverse witnesses.

## Issues

1. Whether a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause by prohibiting defense counsel from using leading questions during cross-examination of a government witness, where the defense remains free to cross-examine the witness using non-leading questions.
2. Whether the limitation on leading questions warranted a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 based on the claimed Confrontation Clause violation and its effect on the verdict.

## Decision

- The court denied McKenna’s Rule 33 motion for a new trial.
- The court determined that the restriction on leading questions did not amount to a Confrontation Clause violation because McKenna was not barred from cross-examining Bruno; only the manner of questioning was limited.
- The court treated the ruling as a matter of trial control over the mode of examining witnesses rather than a denial of the defense’s ability to test the witness through cross-examination.
- The court concluded that McKenna was not entitled to a new trial on this ground.

## Legal Principles

- The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the opportunity for effective cross-examination, not the right to cross-examine in any particular format chosen by the defense.
- Trial courts have discretion to regulate the mode and manner of examining witnesses, including whether leading questions may be used.
- A limitation that regulates only the form of cross-examination (such as a ban on leading questions) does not, by itself, establish a Confrontation Clause violation when the witness is still available for questioning.
- A defendant’s choice to forgo cross-examination after an imposed limitation on questioning form does not convert the limitation into a complete denial of confrontation.
- Relief under Rule 33 depends on whether the claimed trial error justifies a new trial in the interest of justice; a defendant must show more than dissatisfaction with the court’s control of questioning.

## Conclusion

United States v. McKenna holds that prohibiting leading questions during cross-examination of a government witness did not violate the Sixth Amendment where the defense still had the ability to cross-examine the witness using non-leading questions, and the court therefore denied the defendant’s post-verdict Rule 33 motion for a new trial.


United States v. McKenna, 791 F. Supp. 1101 (1992)