United States v. Check
582 F.2d 668 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's testimony recounting their own out-of-court statements to a non-testifying declarant is inadmissible hearsay if it serves as a transparent conduit to convey the substance of the non-testifying declarant's statements to the jury. A witness's own prior consistent statements are not admissible as substantive evidence unless they meet a specific exception, such as rebutting a charge of recent fabrication under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B).
Facts:
- Detective Stephen Spinelli, operating undercover, was assigned to investigate fellow police officer Sandy Check for alleged narcotics trafficking.
- Spinelli utilized a confidential informant, William Joseph Cali, to arrange an introduction and negotiate a narcotics purchase from Check.
- On August 8, 1974, Cali acted as an intermediary, shuttling messages between Spinelli, who was inside a restaurant, and Check, who remained outside.
- The negotiations, conducted via Cali, initially concerned cocaine but later shifted to heroin.
- On August 9, after extensive negotiations through Cali, Spinelli directly met and paid Check $50 for a 'taste' of heroin, which Cali delivered three days later.
- On August 13, Spinelli met directly with Check again and paid him $1,200 for half an ounce of heroin and an additional $150 to cover a debt Cali owed to Check.
- During a subsequent meeting on August 22, Check and Spinelli discussed future large-scale drug transactions, and Check allegedly stated he "wouldn't hesitate to shoot" anyone who caused him problems.
- Cali, the informant who relayed the initial negotiations, did not testify at Check's trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Sandy Check was charged in a three-count indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with narcotics violations.
- Following a seven-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict convicting Check on all counts.
- The district court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Check to imprisonment and a period of special probation.
- Check (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
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 the introduction of an undercover officer's testimony, framed as only what the officer said to a non-testifying informant, constitute inadmissible hearsay when the officer's statements are designed to convey the substance of the informant's out-of-court declarations to the jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Waterman, J.
Yes. The introduction of such testimony violates the rule against hearsay because it uses the testifying witness as a 'transparent conduit' for the inadmissible out-of-court statements of a non-testifying declarant. The court held that the prosecutor's artful questioning—asking the witness, 'Without telling us what Mr. Cali said to you, what did you say to him?'—was an improper device to introduce the substance of the informant Cali's statements. These implied statements, offered for their truth, were hearsay and violated the defendant's right to confront and cross-examine the declarant, Cali. The court also rejected the government's argument that Spinelli's own prior statements were admissible simply because he was on the stand; under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness's own prior consistent statements are inadmissible hearsay unless they fall within a narrow exception, such as rebutting a charge of recent fabrication, which was not applicable here. The court concluded the error was not harmless due to the extensive and prejudicial nature of the improperly admitted evidence, which conditioned the jury to view Check as a corrupt and experienced drug dealer before hearing any admissible evidence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a firm precedent against circumventing the hearsay rule through clever prosecutorial questioning. It clarifies that courts must look to the substance, not the form, of testimony to determine if it is being used as an indirect method to introduce out-of-court statements. The decision serves as a significant check on the government's ability to use the testimony of law enforcement officers to 'backdoor' information from confidential informants who are not produced for cross-examination. Furthermore, the court's analysis reinforces the limited admissibility of a witness's own prior consistent statements under the Federal Rules of Evidence, preventing them from being used as general substantive evidence or for improper bolstering.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Check