USA v. Tony Goodman

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Tony Anthony Goodman. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 16-16276

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16276
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00006-TCB-RGV-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TONY ANTHONY GOODMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 22, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-16276

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

Page: 2 of 5

Tony Anthony Goodman appeals his convictions for aiding and abetting
individuals dealing firearms without a license, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(a)(l)(A), (a)(2); multiple counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), and 924(e); multiple counts
of possession of an unregistered “sawed-off shotgun,” pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
§§ 5841, 5845(a)(2), 5861(d), and 5871; distribution of
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(C); and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). He argues that the district court abused its discretion
by refusing to allow him to present testimony at his trial regarding whether he is
paralyzed.
Goodman’s defense was that the person identified by witnesses and shown
in the undercover videos committing the drug and firearm offenses was not him
because he could not walk, when the person in the videos could. Given this
defense, the government moved for a physical examination of Goodman by an
expert witness and its motion was granted. However, Goodman refused to submit
to the medical examination to determine medical paralysis. The government
therefore filed a motion in limine to prevent Goodman from calling witnesses to
testify about his alleged paralysis––witnesses who had neither been qualified as
medical experts nor had the opportunity to examine Goodman. The government
2

Case: 16-16276

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

Page: 3 of 5

argued that because Goodman had refused the medical examination he should be
precluded from putting forth any expert testimony that he is paralyzed. Goodman
responded that he did not wish to offer any expert testimony as his intended
witnesses were caregivers, including doctors, that would testify that they had never
observed anything about his behavior inconsistent with his paralysis claim. The
district court ruled that it would permit expert testimony on the paralysis issue only
from a qualified physician, and it prevented Goodman from calling his witnesses.
We review a district court’s ruling on a motion in limine for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Kendrick, 682 F.3d 974, 981 (11th Cir. 2012).
“Abuse-of-discretion review recognizes the range of possible conclusions the trial
judge may reach, and we must affirm unless we determine that the district court
made a clear error of judgment or applied an incorrect legal standard . . . .” Id.
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right “to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” U.S. Const. Amend. VI. “Implicit in
this right[,] as well as in the basic notion of ‘due process of law’ in general, is the
idea that criminal defendants must be afforded the opportunity to present evidence
in their favor.” See United States v. Hurn, 368 F.3d 1359, 1362 (11th Cir. 2004)
(citation omitted).

3

Case: 16-16276

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

Page: 4 of 5

In analyzing “a defendant’s claims under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to
call witnesses in h[is] defense, we engage in a two-step analysis.” See id. At step
one, we first examine “whether this right was actually violated, then turn to
whether this error was ‘harmless beyond a reasonable doubt’ . . . .” Id. at 1362–63.
“[A] defendant must generally be permitted to introduce evidence directly
pertaining” to an affirmative defense. Id. at 1363. However, “[a] defendant’s
refusal to submit to an evaluation by a state expert, based on his own choice . . . ,
may provide a compelling reason to exclude the defendant’s expert testimony,
even when the testimony is material.” See Lynd v. Terry, 470 F.3d 1308, 1314
(11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
Furthermore, “[a] witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion” under
certain circumstances. See Fed. R. Evid. 702. But, “[i]f a witness is not testifying
as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a)
rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding
the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on
scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.”
Fed. R. Evid. 701.

4

Case: 16-16276

Date Filed: 06/22/2017

Page: 5 of 5

At step two, we examine whether “the record contains sufficient independent
evidence of guilt, [so that] any error is harmless.” See Hurn, 368 F.3d at 1363;
United States v. Eckhardt, 466 F.3d 938, 947 (11th Cir. 2006).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to allow Goodman
to present his proposed testimony regarding whether he is paralyzed. Goodman’s
refusal to submit to a court-ordered physical exam by an expert provided a
compelling reason to exclude Goodman’s desired testimony. See Lynd, 470 F.3d at
1314. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it held that the issue of
paralysis was a question for an expert witness and precluded Goodman from
presenting testimony from lay witnesses that constituted expert testimony
regarding his paralysis.
Additionally, any error was harmless because the record contains sufficient
independent evidence of guilt, based on eye-witnesses’ identification and video
recordings of the offenses. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

5