United States v. Duran Samaniego
345 F.3d 1280 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An out-of-court statement against the declarant's penal interest is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) if the declarant is unavailable. A foreign national located outside the United States is considered unavailable if the proponent of the statement has made reasonable, though unsuccessful, efforts to procure their attendance.
Facts:
- Roberto Duran, a world-champion boxer, owned several championship belts.
- In September 1993, Duran claimed that his championship belts were stolen from his home in Panama.
- Duran alleged that his brother-in-law, Bolivar Iglesias, was the person who stole the belts.
- Sometime after the alleged theft, Iglesias apologized in the presence of Duran and his family members for stealing the belts.
- The belts subsequently came into the possession of Luis Gonzalez Baez, a Miami businessman.
- Baez later attempted to sell the belts.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government confiscated the championship belts after Luis Gonzalez Baez attempted to sell them to undercover FBI agents.
- The government filed an interpleader action in the U.S. District Court to determine rightful ownership between Roberto Duran and Baez.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Duran.
- The district court entered a final judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- Baez, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 admission of testimony that an out-of-court declarant apologized for stealing property, offered to prove the theft occurred, violate the rule against hearsay when the declarant is a foreign national who could not be located for trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Carnes, Circuit Judge
No, the admission of the testimony does not violate the rule against hearsay. Although the district court admitted the testimony for the wrong reason, it was ultimately admissible under the hearsay exception for a statement against interest by an unavailable declarant. The trial court incorrectly admitted the testimony under the Rule 803(3) 'state of mind' exception. While an apology expresses a then-existing emotion (remorse), the exception explicitly excludes a 'statement of memory or belief to prove the fact remembered or believed.' Here, the testimony that Iglesias apologized 'for having stolen the belts' was used to prove the underlying fact of the theft, which is impermissible under Rule 803(3). However, the appellate court affirmed the admission on an alternative ground, Rule 804(b)(3), the exception for a 'statement against interest.' Iglesias's confession to stealing the belts clearly subjected him to criminal and civil liability. The exception also requires the declarant to be 'unavailable.' Under Rule 804(a)(5), a declarant is unavailable if they are absent and the proponent has been unable to procure their attendance by 'process or other reasonable means.' Because Iglesias was a Panamanian citizen living in Panama, he was beyond the district court's subpoena power. Duran demonstrated that he used 'reasonable means' by having Iglesias's own family members attempt unsuccessfully to locate him and persuade him to testify. Therefore, Iglesias was unavailable, and his statement against interest was properly admitted.
Analysis:
This case provides a crucial illustration of the distinction between two major hearsay exceptions: state of mind (Rule 803(3)) and statement against interest (Rule 804(b)(3)). It clarifies that the state-of-mind exception cannot be used as a backdoor to admit statements of memory or belief about the cause of that emotion. The decision's primary significance, however, lies in its practical application of the 'unavailability' requirement under Rule 804(a)(5) for foreign nationals. It establishes that for a declarant beyond the court's subpoena power, 'reasonable means' can be satisfied by good-faith, informal efforts to secure voluntary attendance, providing a clear standard for future cases involving witnesses located abroad.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Duran Samaniego