Federal Evidence Review

In criminal RICO action against members of religious cult, FRE 610 did not bar admission of evidence of the cult's religious teachings when this evidence was relevant to the defendant's methods for exhorting cult members to commit murders and other racketeering acts, in United States v. Beasley, 72 F.3d 1518, 1527 (11th Cir. January 5, 1996) (No. 92-4773) (per curiam)

One of the little used Federal Rules of Evidence is FRE 610 which bars "[e]vidence of the beliefs or opinions of a witness on matters of religion" when it is proffered to "show[ ] that by reason of their [the beliefs'] nature the witness' credibility is impaired or enhanced." The wording of the rule, as well as its Advisory Committee Notes, make it clear that the rule does not stand in the way of admitting evidence of religious beliefs when relevant to proof of the elements of a charged crime. FRE 610 is specifically directed at limiting religious belief evidence only when proffered for the purpose of assessing a witness' veracity. A 1996 case in the Eleventh Circuit demonstrates the flexibility of the rule for use in proving the elements of a charged crime.

In the case, defendant Beasley and other co-defendants were followers of a defendant called Yahweh Ben Yahweh. As explained by the circuit, Yahweh's followers were members of his "religious cult later to be known as the 'Yahwehs' or 'Black Hebrew Israelites.' Yahweh taught that blacks are the true Jews ... and that he had been chosen by 'the Terrible Black God, Yahweh' to lead blacks from years of oppression to the promised land of Israel." Beasley, 72 F.3d at 1521. Over time, the cult's activities veered into a criminal direction:

"At Yahweh's direction, many murders and attempted murders in the Miami area occurred. One of the most violent members of the group, Robert Rozier (“Rozier”),testified at trial that an ultra-secret group called the 'Brotherhood' was established within the cult. This group was to perform any task that Yahweh directed, including murder. Yahweh conducted separate meetings for Brotherhood members, which were to be kept secret under penalty of death. ... To become a member of the Brotherhood, one had to kill a white person and bring proof of the kill to Yahweh in the form of a head, an ear, or some other body part. Between April and October 1986, Yahweh sent his death angels into the Miami community on multiple occasions to kill white people randomly and to commit acts of retribution against blacks who interfered with the Yahwehs' sales of products and collection of donations. Yahweh also directed the killings of white people as retribution for 400 years of oppression and for specific acts of alleged police brutality against blacks occurring at the time."

Beasley, 72 F.3d at 1522 (footnote omitted).

The federal grand jury indicted Yahweh and members of his cult for various "racketeering acts of murder, extortion, and arson." The indictment noted "the Yahweh religion ... as the racketeering enterprise" through which the various crimes occurred. The defendants were convicted and some appealed contending, in part, that "the government obtained the convictions in this case by condemning a religion." Specifically, they charged that the trial court erred by admitting "evidence of Yahweh teachings" other than as "relevant to the charges in the indictment." Instead, they contended that the court admitted "testimony regarding general teachings of the Yahweh faith [which] w[ere] not relevant." In addition, they "argue[d] strenuously that the contested evidence violated Federal Rule of Evidence 610, which prohibits using religion to impeach a witness's credibility." Beasley, 72 F.3d at 1527.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the defendant's argument that admission of evidence about the religious teachnings of their cult violated the Federal Rules of Evidence. The circuit explained that the evidence was relevant to the prosecution of the case. It was "highly relevant to the jury's understanding of the existence, motives, and objectives of the RICO conspiracy and the means by which it was conducted. Yahweh used the religion as a means of exhorting followers to commit the racketeering acts, and appellants cannot hide behind the general principle that religion is normally inadmissible in court under both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the First Amendment. Although evidence of Yahweh beliefs and practices was damaging to the defense, it was not unfairly prejudicial." Beasley, 72 F.3d at 1527 (citing United States v. Sun Myung Moon, 718 F.2d 1210, 1233 (2d Cir. 1983) (beliefs, superstitions, or affiliation with a religious group is properly admissible where probative of an issue in a criminal prosecution), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 971 (1984); United States v. Reme, 738 F.2d 1156, 1159-60 (11th Cir. 1984) (same), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1104 (1985) (same); United States v. Mills, 704 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1983) (same), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1243 (1984)).

The circuit directly addressed the contention that the evidence violated FRE 610:

"It seems clear from the record that the Yahweh religion was not on trial. The evidence regarding the religion was relevant, because religious teachings were used to justify, rationalize, and promote crime. Appellants argue strenuously that the contested evidence violated Federal Rule of Evidence 610, which prohibits using religion to impeach a witness's credibility. The appellants' argument is misguided. The government agrees that it would have been improper to attack witnesses' credibility with their religious beliefs by suggesting that, because of those beliefs, their testimony was untrustworthy. However, in this case, the government inquired into Yahweh practices and beliefs in an effort to show the background of the RICO enterprise, which the defendants used to carry out acts of murder and arson. The evidence was relevant to show how Yahweh exerted influence and control over the members and how he used his preachings to justify heinous crimes. It is also important to our analysis that Yahweh himself sought to interject religion into his cross-examination by responding to numerous questions with a religious/Biblical response. On direct examination, defense counsel asked Yahweh about his practices and life style, as well as about general Yahweh beliefs. For those reasons, the admission of all of this evidence was not unduly prejudicial under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Relevant evidence is properly excluded only by a finding that “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues or misleading the jury....”

Beasley, 72 F.3d at 1527 (citing United States v v. Sampol, 636 F.2d 621, 666 (D.C.Cir. 1980); United States v. Terzado-Madruga, 897 F.2d 1099, 1117, 1119 (11th Cir. 1990)).

As demonstrated in Beasley, FRE 610 is properly used when it precludes evidence attempting to show that a witness could not be trusted or believed because the witness lacked religious beliefs or had some unusual ones. But the rule does not stand in the way of admission of evidence about religious beliefs when relevant and probative of criminal conduct.