United States v. Delon Echols
Decided June 26, 2024 (2024)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) only if made before the alleged motive to fabricate arose; however, an unpreserved error in admitting such a statement is subject to plain error review, requiring reversal only if it seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.
Facts:
- In May 2019, Delon Echols and his friend Deshawn Burt were arrested in Utah for possessing marijuana.
- Renita Burns, Burt's girlfriend, drove from southern Illinois to Utah to bond Echols and Burt out of jail, then drove them back to her home in Mascoutah, Illinois.
- Echols moved in with Burns, Burt, and her five children and nephew in Mascoutah around July 2019.
- In August 2019, Burns found a notice on her mailbox for an unsolicited package at the post office; upon picking it up and opening it, she discovered about two pounds of marijuana and several hundred Xanax pills.
- Burns later overheard Burt ask Echols, 'Why would you send that to her house in her name?' to which Echols responded, 'Well, you told me to.'
- On August 26, fearing another illicit package, Burns took the remaining Xanax pills to Sergeant Kyle Donovan at the local police station to explain the situation.
- On August 28, Burns learned from Burt that a second package was coming and sought police advice.
- On August 29, Burns met with Lieutenant Matt Steinkamp, recounted her story, and went with him to the post office where a package addressed to her was already waiting.
- Burns signed for the second package, took it to the police station, and Lieutenant Steinkamp opened it to reveal 911.5 grams of MDMA (ecstasy).
- On September 12, DEA Agent Ryan Bandy interviewed Burns, who told him about both packages and described her belief that Echols was responsible for their delivery.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury indicted Delon Echols for attempting to possess MDMA with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C), and 846.
- The case proceeded to a three-day jury trial in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
- During trial, defense counsel objected to the testimony of Agent Bandy recounting Burns's September 12 interview, arguing it was 'bolstering' and raised general hearsay concerns.
- The prosecution argued the testimony was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) as a prior consistent statement to rebut charges of recent fabrication.
- The district court admitted Agent Bandy's testimony, overruling the defense's objection, without the defense specifically raising the Tome timing issue.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict against Echols.
- Echols was sentenced to 70 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
- Echols, as defendant-appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, arguing the district court erred by admitting the testimony about Burns's prior consistent statement.
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 admission of a witness's prior consistent statement, made after a motive to fabricate arose, constitute reversible error under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) when the defense failed to specifically object on timing grounds at trial, triggering plain error review?
Opinions:
Majority - Hamilton, Circuit Judge
No, the admission of a witness's prior consistent statement, made after a motive to fabricate arose, does not constitute reversible error in this case because the defendant failed to preserve the specific timing objection at trial, and under plain error review, the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings. The court first determined that the district court erred in admitting Agent Bandy's testimony about Renita Burns's September 12 statement. Citing Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995), and Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), the court reiterated that a prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication is only admissible if it was made before the motive to fabricate arose. Here, the defense plausibly argued that Burns developed a motive to fabricate in late August (when she learned of the second package or picked it up) to protect her boyfriend, Deshawn Burt, making her September 12 statement to Agent Bandy inadmissible under the Tome rule. However, the court found that Echols' trial counsel did not specifically object on the 'timing issue' or the Tome rule at trial. Instead, counsel made a general 'bolstering' objection and an implied hearsay objection, which were insufficient to preserve the specific Tome timing argument for appellate review. Therefore, the appellate court reviewed the error under the plain-error standard. Under plain-error review, reversal requires (1) an error, (2) that is plain, (3) affects substantial rights, and (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings. The first two elements were met: the admission was an error, and it was plain given the clear precedent of Tome. The court assumed, without deciding, that the third element (affecting substantial rights) was met, but concluded the fourth element was not. Agent Bandy's testimony was found to play a minor role, largely repeating Burns's prior testimony, and the prosecutor did not emphasize it in closing arguments. Substantial other evidence, including a postal worker identifying Echols trying to pick up the second package, connected Echols to the illicit drugs, preventing the admission of the statement from constituting a 'miscarriage of justice' or a 'substantial risk of convicting an innocent person'.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict application of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) regarding the timing of prior consistent statements, emphasizing that such statements must predate any alleged motive to fabricate. Crucially, it highlights the importance of specific and timely objections at trial to preserve issues for appellate review. A general objection like 'bolstering' is insufficient to preserve a specific Tome timing argument, shifting the standard of review to the much higher plain-error threshold. The ruling underscores that even clear evidentiary errors may not lead to reversal on appeal if the error's impact on the overall fairness or outcome of the trial is deemed minor due to other compelling evidence.
