United States v. Adedoyin
2004 WL 1176675, 369 F.3d 337 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction resulting from a nolo contendere plea is admissible in a subsequent proceeding to prove the fact of the conviction itself, and not for purposes of proving the defendant’s guilt of the underlying crime, as such a conviction constitutes a public record under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(8) and is not excluded by Rule 410 or 803(22) when offered for this purpose.
Facts:
- In August 1981, Lawrence Adedoyin, then known as Lawrence Omoadedoyin, pled nolo contendere in the Superior Court of California to a felony charge, resulting in his conviction and sentence to one year in prison and three years probation.
- In 1985, an immigration judge in San Francisco ordered Adedoyin deported, and he subsequently left the United States.
- On November 27, 1994, Adedoyin returned to the United States after obtaining a Nigerian passport under the name Adedoyin Famakinde, which he used to secure a United States visa.
- When applying for the visa, Adedoyin responded negatively to a question about prior criminal convictions, thereby failing to disclose his 1981 California felony conviction.
- From 1997 through 1999, Adedoyin attempted to establish a television network promoting African heritage in the United States.
- During his television network endeavor, Adedoyin failed to pay several landlords, vendors, and employees, and bounced a $180,000 check to a vendor for satellite access.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence Adedoyin was initially indicted, followed by a superseding indictment, and then a second superseding indictment filed on July 24, 2001, charging him with improper entry, visa fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud.
- Adedoyin entered a plea of not guilty and moved to sever the mail and wire fraud charges from the entry and visa counts, which the district court (a court of first instance) granted, scheduling the mail and wire fraud trial first.
- Prior to the scheduled September 19, 2001 trial on the mail and wire fraud counts, Adedoyin moved for a 90-day postponement, arguing he could not receive a fair trial due to the September 11th terrorist attacks, which the district court denied.
- On October 5, 2001, following the trial on mail and wire fraud, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on three mail fraud counts and not guilty on three wire fraud counts.
- The trial on the four entry and visa charges began on November 27, 2001, during which the district court, over Adedoyin’s objection citing Federal Rule of Evidence 410, admitted a certified copy of his 1981 California felony conviction.
- The jury found Adedoyin guilty of two counts of improper entry into the United States by an alien but not guilty of two counts of fraud and misuse of visas, permits, and other documents.
- The district court sentenced Adedoyin on both sets of convictions.
- Adedoyin (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Evidence 410, which generally prohibits the admission of nolo contendere pleas, also prohibit the admission of a conviction predicated on a nolo contendere plea when offered to prove the fact of conviction itself, rather than the defendant's guilt of the underlying crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenberg, Circuit Judge
No, Federal Rule of Evidence 410 does not prohibit the admission of a conviction predicated on a nolo contendere plea when offered to prove the fact of conviction itself, rather than the defendant's guilt of the underlying crime. The Court affirmed Adedoyin's conviction, addressing three main issues. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Adedoyin’s motion for a 90-day continuance after the September 11th attacks. The court reasoned that Adedoyin was a Nigerian national, not of Middle Eastern descent, and the charges were fraud, not terrorism. Crucially, the district court conducted an individual voir dire of each prospective juror, and each assured the court they could be fair and impartial, demonstrating careful exercise of discretion in an area where trial courts have wide latitude. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in questioning Adedoyin and defense witness Wilfred Warrick under Federal Rule of Evidence 614(b), although it approached the limit of appropriate questioning. The court found that its role as more than a "mere umpire" allows it to question witnesses in a search for truth, and the jury's mixed verdict (guilty on mail fraud, not guilty on wire fraud) indicated that the questioning did not prejudice Adedoyin. Third, the district court correctly admitted evidence of Adedoyin’s 1981 California felony conviction, which resulted from a nolo contendere plea. The court distinguished between a nolo contendere plea itself, which Rule 410 generally excludes, and a conviction based on such a plea. While a nolo plea is not an admission of guilt, a conviction based on it has the same legal consequences as a conviction based on a guilty plea. The evidence was offered not to prove Adedoyin's guilt of the 1981 crime, but to prove the fact of that conviction, thereby showing that his representation on his visa application that he had no criminal convictions was willfully false or misleading. The court further clarified that Federal Rule of Evidence 803(22), which excludes judgments based on nolo contendere pleas when offered "to prove any fact essential to sustain the judgment," did not apply because the conviction was admitted as a public record under Rule 803(8) and not to prove facts related to the underlying crime.
Analysis:
This case clarifies a critical distinction regarding the admissibility of nolo contendere pleas versus convictions based on such pleas under Federal Rules of Evidence 410 and 803(22). By holding that a nolo contendere conviction is admissible to prove the fact of conviction, but not the underlying guilt, the Third Circuit ensures that defendants cannot use the unique nature of nolo pleas to misrepresent their criminal history without consequence. This ruling provides important guidance for prosecutors and courts in immigration fraud and other cases where the mere existence of a prior conviction is a material fact, reinforcing that a nolo contendere plea still results in a legally valid conviction with collateral consequences.
