Background
Christopher Agbaje was convicted of money laundering and aiding and abetting mail and wire fraud. The government’s case relied heavily on the testimony of Ome Etue, an alleged accomplice who had cooperated with prosecutors. During a recorded witness preparation session, Etue made statements indicating he was shocked by the government’s theory that Agbaje had used him and that the government had provided him with the means to prove Agbaje’s guilt. The district court excluded these statements at trial, ruling they were irrelevant and that the government’s preparation was not improper.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that evidence tending to show a substantial reason for bias or interest in an important witness is never collateral or irrelevant. The statements made by Etue during the preparation session were admissible as extrinsic evidence to prove his bias toward the government and against Agbaje. The court found that the exclusion of this evidence was not harmless error because Etue’s testimony was a key link between Agbaje and the fraud scheme, and the jury’s split verdict suggested reliance on his testimony.
Evidence showing a witness’s bias is almost always admissible.
United States v. Chambers, 133 F.4th 812, 816 (8th Cir. 2025)
What it means going forward
The decision requires a new trial for Christopher Agbaje, allowing the defense to introduce evidence of the witness’s bias derived from the government’s preparation session.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download