Is a federal district court's ruling to limit cross examination an "abuse of discretion"?

Turning to the district court's ruling to limit cross examination, we are similarly unpersuaded. "We review evidentiary rulings, including a trial court's decision to limit the scope of cross-examination, for abuse of discretion." United States v. White, 692 F.3d 235, 244 (2d Cir. 2012), as amended (Sept. 28, 2012). We will find such abuse when "the trial judge's evidentiary rulings were arbitrary and irrational." Id. A trial judge retains the authority to "impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other

Page 5

things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679 (1986).