United States v. Biener
52 F. Supp. 54 (1943)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's prior inconsistent statement that is repudiated at trial cannot be used as substantive evidence of a defendant's guilt; it may only be used for the limited purpose of impeaching the witness's credibility.
Facts:
- Kathryn Marra, a married woman in Chicago, telephoned the defendant, Edward Biener, and asked him for money to travel to Philadelphia.
- After transportation was furnished, Marra traveled to Philadelphia, where Biener met her upon arrival.
- Biener and Marra went to a hotel where they registered as husband and wife, though Marra lived there alone for a month.
- Biener then arranged for Marra to live in two separate apartments, both leased under the name "Mr. and Mrs. Edward Biener," where she continued to live alone.
- Marra repaid the transportation money to a third party, Frank Wollferth, after learning he had originally provided it.
- Prior to trial, Marra provided a written statement to FBI agents asserting that she had engaged in prostitution in Philadelphia and had given the proceeds to Biener.
- Before the trial, Marra contacted the U.S. Attorney and also told an FBI agent that her prior written statement was false and that she would not testify to its contents.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Biener, was indicted in federal district court (a court of first instance) on charges of transporting a woman for immoral purposes.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of the government's evidence, defendant's counsel made a motion for a directed verdict of not guilty, which the court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty.
- The defendant then filed post-trial motions for a new trial and for an arrest of judgment, which the court is now deciding.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a defendant be convicted when the only evidence supporting the verdict of guilt is a key witness's prior out-of-court statement that the witness repudiates during sworn in-court testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Bard, District Judge
No. A conviction cannot be sustained where the only evidence of guilt is a witness's prior inconsistent statement that is repudiated at trial. Under the established rule, such a statement can be used only to discredit the witness's present testimony and cannot be treated as affirmative proof of the facts it contains. The government's case against Biener rested entirely on the facts within Kathryn Marra's written statement to the FBI. At trial, Marra testified that this statement was false and that she did not engage in prostitution. The government was not surprised by this testimony, as Marra had informed them prior to trial that her statement was incorrect. Therefore, her prior statement was only admissible to impeach her credibility, not as substantive evidence of Biener's guilt. Although the court acknowledged powerful criticism of this rule from authorities like Wigmore, who argue that a prior statement from a witness present for cross-examination should be treated as substantive evidence, the court felt bound by precedent, especially in a criminal case. Without the repudiated statement as substantive evidence, the government had no evidence to sustain the verdict, compelling the court to grant the defendant's motion for arrest of judgment.
Analysis:
This case clearly illustrates the orthodox common law rule strictly limiting the use of prior inconsistent statements to impeachment purposes. It highlights the crucial distinction between evidence that attacks a witness's credibility and substantive evidence that can prove a fact at issue. The court's opinion explicitly discusses the tension between this established, formalistic rule and a more modern, practical approach (later adopted in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A)) that would allow certain prior statements as substantive evidence. For students, this case demonstrates how a conviction, even one returned by a jury, can be legally insufficient if it is based on evidence that is inadmissible for the purpose of proving guilt.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Biener