United States v. Duenas
691 F.3d 1070 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), prior testimony from an unavailable witness is not admissible unless the party against whom it is offered had a 'similar motive' to develop the testimony at the prior proceeding; a motive to challenge the voluntariness of a confession at a suppression hearing is not similar to the motive to challenge the substance and credibility of that confession at trial. Additionally, the exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress evidence found during a search where police unconstitutionally allowed media access, provided the media's presence did not expand the scope of the search or aid in the discovery of evidence.
Facts:
- Raymond ('Ray') and Lourdes ('Lou') Duenas lived with family on an isolated jungle property in Dededo, Guam.
- On April 19, 2007, Guam Police Department officers, along with federal DEA and ATF agents, executed a search warrant at the Duenas residence for evidence of narcotics trafficking.
- The execution of the warrant was chaotic, with police allowing members of the media and the general public onto the property while the two-day search was ongoing.
- Officers staged seized stolen property in the front yard for the media to photograph and escorted some journalists to the rear of the property to view a marijuana patch.
- During the search, officers seized approximately 82 grams of methamphetamine, guns, drug paraphernalia, and ledgers from the Duenases' residence.
- After their arrest, both Ray and Lou were taken to a police precinct where they gave separate statements.
- Officer Frankie Smith, a former friend of Ray's, took Ray's oral and written statements, in which Ray admitted to exchanging methamphetamine for stolen goods.
Procedural Posture:
- Ray and Lou Duenas were charged in a superseding indictment in the U.S. District Court of Guam (trial court).
- The Duenases filed a joint motion to suppress physical evidence seized from their property, which the district court denied.
- Ray Duenas also filed a motion to suppress his post-arrest statements, which the district court denied following an evidentiary hearing where Officer Frankie Smith testified.
- After the suppression hearing but before trial, Officer Smith was killed.
- The government moved to admit Officer Smith's suppression hearing testimony at trial; the district court granted the motion over Ray Duenas's hearsay objection.
- Following a trial, a jury convicted Ray and Lou Duenas on multiple counts.
- The district court denied their post-trial motions for judgment of acquittal and sentenced them to prison.
- Ray and Lou Duenas (appellants) appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging the denial of their suppression motions and, for Ray, the admission of Officer Smith's testimony.
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)(1) permit the admission of an officer's suppression hearing testimony at trial when the defendant's motive for cross-examination at the suppression hearing was limited to the voluntariness of a confession, whereas the motive at trial would be to challenge the substance and credibility of that confession?
Opinions:
Majority - Wardlaw, Circuit Judge
No, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) does not permit the admission of the officer's testimony under these circumstances because the defendant's motive for cross-examination was not similar. The court reasoned that the 'similar motive' analysis under Rule 804(b)(1) is a factual inquiry that focuses on the 'fundamental objective' of the cross-examination at each proceeding. At the suppression hearing, Ray's fundamental objective was solely to demonstrate that his confession was involuntary and obtained in violation of Miranda; his counsel's questions were limited to the circumstances surrounding the confession. In contrast, Ray's objective at trial would have been to vigorously challenge the substance, accuracy, and credibility of the confession itself by questioning Officer Smith on the details of the statements. Because these motives were substantially dissimilar, the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. The court also found the error was not harmless, as the prosecution itself described the confession as the 'crux of the case' against Ray.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'similar motive' test under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), particularly for admitting suppression hearing testimony at a subsequent trial. By focusing on the 'fundamental objective' of the cross-examination, the court establishes a more stringent standard than a mere 'opportunity' to question the witness. This precedent makes it more difficult for prosecutors to use testimony from preliminary hearings if the witness becomes unavailable, as the legal and factual issues at stake in a suppression hearing (admissibility) are inherently different from those at trial (guilt or innocence). The ruling reinforces the principle that a defendant must have a meaningful opportunity to test the substantive truth of testimony before it can be used to determine guilt.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Duenas