In murder trial, excluding defendant’s additional witnesses concerning his exculpatory and other statements, when offered for a non-hearsay purpose (showing that jailhouse witnesses may have learned of details of the charged murder), because under FRE 403, the evidence had “little probative value, [and was] unnecessarily cumulative, and possibly confusing to the jury” in United States v. Street, 548 F.3d 618 (8th Cir. Dec. 1, 2008) (Nos. 07-2600, 08-2109)
Evidence may be admissible for a non-hearsay purpose, yet be excluded as having a probative value that is substantially outweighed by the unfair prejudice or confusion of issues under FRE 403. The Eighth Circuit previously addressed this issue in considering whether a trial court properly excluded non-hearsay statements under FRE 403.
In the case, defendant Street was twice tried for aiding and abetting the murder of a methamphetamine dealer. He was charged with assisting this murder in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense. The victim’s body was found in the trunk of the victim's car. The victim had been shot and stabbed. No physical evidence linked the defendant to the murder and the murder weapons were never found.
At trial, the prosecution attempted to show that the murder occurred after the defendant feared he would be implicated in a plan to steal a skid loader (a stolen bulldozer). The first trial resulted in a hung jury. During the second trial, the defendant sought to call as witnesses in his defense “fifteen witnesses who would testify about statements [Street] had made to them about [victim] Weil’s death and his [Street's] innocence of the crime.” Street, 548 F.3d at 625. The trial judge denied this request as he deemed it to be inadmissible hearsay. The defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant contested the exclusion of his fifteen witnesses based on the trial court's reasoning that it was inadmissible hearsay.
The circuit affirmed the exclusion of the other witnesses. The defendant claimed the proffered evidence was offered for the non-hearsay purpose “to demonstrate that the government [jailhouse] witnesses could have learned details of the murder from the prison grapevine and then fabricated convincing accounts of Street’s alleged confessions to it.” Street, 548 F.3d at 625. The circuit noted that the proposed evidence also included exculpatory statements the defendant made to the various witnesses. Nonetheless, the proposed testimony was cumulative of other evidence admitted at the trial, such as evidence from some "fifty additional witnesses" the defendant had successfully placed on the stand to testify on his behalf. "This stream of witnesses gave evidence used to impeach government witnesses and bolster Street's version of events. Several testified to alternative theories of the crime."Street, 548 F.3d at 625.
According to the circuit allowing the defendant to add testimony from another fifteen witnesses would have been unavailing. As the circuit explained:
The trial record reflected that Street acknowledged having talked with three of the four jailhouse informants who testified for the government, and Street’s associate Jerry Hilton testified that he himself had provided details of the crime to the fourth informant. There was thus already considerable evidence introduced at trial establishing how the informants could have learned about details of Weil’s death. Calling another fifteen witnesses to reinforce this point would have been of little probative value, unnecessarily cumulative, and possibly confusing to the jury. See FRE 403. Under these circumstances the district court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing Street's additional witnesses.
Street, 548 F.3d at 625.
The circuit did not directly address or resolve whether the proffered testimony of the fifteen witnesses was admissible for a non-hearsay purpose. It simply noted that it might be. Nonetheless, the testimony was excluded under FRE 403. This approach is similar for many of the circuits, such as the Ninth Circuit. See, e.g., United States v. Adamson, 291 F.3d 606, 613-14 n.3 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[S]tatements were not properly excluded as hearsay because they were not being offered for their truth value. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Nor were Richard’s statements appropriately excluded under Rule 403: the statements were exceedingly probative and only minimally, if at all, prejudicial. Fed. R. Evid. 403.”); United States v. Lovelace, 123 F.3d 650, 652 (7th Cir. 1997) (admission of informant’s tip that defendant would have drugs at specified location violated FRE 403, notwithstanding that it was offered to explain basis for police action; error was harmless), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1132 (1998).
Comments
Post new comment