United States v. Barrett
539 F.2d 244 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), a statement against penal interest offered to exculpate an accused is admissible if the statement as a whole is self-inculpatory and corroborating circumstances clearly indicate its trustworthiness. Furthermore, under Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible for impeachment provided the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny it, without a strict requirement for foundation-laying during cross-examination.
Facts:
- On March 30, 1973, a valuable postage stamp collection was stolen from the Cardinal Spellman Philatelic Museum.
- The burglars bypassed the museum's sophisticated alarm system, a task which expert testimony indicated would require specialized skill and equipment.
- A coin dealer, Kirzner, testified that a reputed gangster, Ben Tilley, claimed responsibility for the theft.
- Kirzner stated that during a meeting with Tilley to appraise the stolen stamps, Arthur Barrett was present and commented on the effort required to secure them.
- Michael Bass, who purchased some of the stamps, also testified that Barrett was present during negotiations and described his own role in bypassing the alarm system and breaking into the vault.
- Another government witness, "Buzzy" Adams, testified that Barrett possessed expertise in burglar alarms and that Barrett later admitted his involvement in the crime.
- Ben Tilley died before Barrett's trial commenced.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur Barrett and seven others were charged in a three-count indictment in a federal district court.
- Two co-defendants pleaded guilty and charges against five others were dismissed, leaving Barrett as the sole defendant for trial.
- During trial, the court made several key evidentiary rulings, including admitting testimony about Barrett's alarm expertise and excluding hearsay testimony intended to exculpate Barrett.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict against Barrett.
- Barrett (appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the district court's evidentiary rulings.
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 804(b)(3) permit the admission of a deceased declarant's hearsay statement that inculpates the declarant in a crime while also exculpating the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, J.
Yes, such a statement may be admissible. A statement against penal interest that also contains a collateral portion exculpating the accused is not automatically inadmissible; the statement must be viewed as a whole to determine if it is self-inculpatory, and if so, it is admissible provided that corroborating circumstances clearly indicate its trustworthiness. The district court erred by excluding a statement from the deceased Ben Tilley, which implicated himself and "Buzzy" Adams while exculpating "Bucky" Barrett. The court reasoned that Tilley's entire statement, by demonstrating inside knowledge of the crime, was sufficiently against his penal interest to satisfy the first part of the Rule 804(b)(3) test. The trial court's error was in failing to proceed to the second step of the analysis: determining whether corroborating circumstances clearly indicated the trustworthiness of the exculpatory portion of the statement. The court also held it was reversible error to exclude prior inconsistent statements offered to impeach government witness Adams, clarifying that Rule 613(b) only requires that the witness have an opportunity to explain or deny the statement at some point, relaxing the traditional foundation requirement. However, the court found no error in admitting evidence of Barrett's expertise with alarms under Rule 404(b), as it was highly probative of his identity as a perpetrator of the uniquely-executed burglary.
Analysis:
This decision provides a significant early interpretation of the newly enacted Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 804(b)(3). The court adopts a broader, more holistic view of what constitutes a 'statement against interest,' rejecting a narrow interpretation that would sever exculpatory portions from their self-inculpatory context. This sets a precedent for admitting collateral statements that are integral to a larger declaration against interest, shifting the focus to the statement's overall reliability. Additionally, the court's clarification of Rule 613(b)'s flexible foundation requirement for impeachment promotes practicality over rigid formalism, impacting how attorneys approach witness examination and the introduction of credibility evidence.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Barrett