United States v. Erasmus Flecha
539 F.2d 874, 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 8367, 1 Fed. R. Serv. 250 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Silence constitutes an adoptive admission of another's statement only when the circumstances are such that a reasonable person would naturally be expected to deny the statement if it were untrue. Mere presence and hearing the statement, especially while under arrest, are insufficient to infer adoption.
Facts:
- On March 25, 1973, customs agents conducted a surveillance of the Colombian freighter 'Francisco Miguel' at a pier in Brooklyn.
- Agents observed appellant Flecha, who was not a crew member, in frequent conversations with crew members Suarez and Pineda-Marin between midnight and 1:50 a.m.
- At 1:50 a.m., Flecha, along with co-defendant Gonzalez and two crew members, emerged from a hatchway dragging four large bales onto the unlit side of the deck.
- When agents moved in to make arrests, Flecha and Gonzalez ran; Gonzalez stopped when an agent's gun discharged accidentally, but Flecha continued running until he was apprehended.
- The four bales were found to contain 287 pounds of marijuana.
- After all defendants were arrested and standing in a line, Gonzalez said in Spanish to Flecha, who was standing inches away, 'Why so much excitement? If we are caught, we are caught.'
- Flecha made no reply to Gonzalez's statement.
Procedural Posture:
- Flecha and four co-defendants were tried on a three-count indictment for drug importation, possession, and conspiracy in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- During the jury trial, the prosecutor elicited testimony from an agent about a statement made by co-defendant Gonzalez to Flecha after their arrest.
- Counsel for Flecha objected to the admission of this statement against Flecha, but the trial court overruled the objection and allowed the testimony.
- The jury returned a guilty verdict against Flecha on all counts.
- Flecha appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with the primary issue being the allegedly erroneous admission of Gonzalez's 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 a defendant's silence in response to a co-defendant's incriminating statement, made while both are under arrest but not being interrogated, constitute an adoptive admission of that statement's truth, making it admissible against him as an exception to the hearsay rule?
Opinions:
Majority - Friendly, J.
No. A defendant's silence in response to a co-defendant's statement made while under arrest does not constitute an adoptive admission where the circumstances would not naturally call for a reply. The court reasoned that inferring assent from silence is only permissible when no other explanation is equally consistent with the silence. The trial court erred by concluding that Flecha's mere presence and ability to hear the statement were sufficient for an adoptive admission. The court found it was highly unnatural to expect a reply from Flecha, as he was under arrest, and many arrested persons know that 'silence is usually golden.' Furthermore, the ambiguous nature of the statement 'If we are caught, we are caught' did not directly accuse Flecha or call for a denial; it would have been 'risible' for him to deny being caught while surrounded by agents. Therefore, Flecha’s silence was not an adoption of the statement. Although the court found the admission of the statement to be an error, it deemed the error harmless due to the overwhelming independent evidence of Flecha's guilt and affirmed the conviction.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and limits the application of the adoptive admission by silence doctrine, particularly in criminal cases. It strongly repudiates the mechanical 'working rule' that anything said in a defendant's presence is admissible, requiring instead a contextual analysis of whether a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would have felt compelled to speak. The ruling reinforces that the circumstances of an arrest dramatically alter the calculus, as silence is a natural and often counseled response. This case serves as an important precedent protecting a defendant's choice to remain silent from being unfairly used as substantive evidence of guilt, even in a pre-Miranda warning context.
