United States v. Flores Amaya
533 F.2d 188 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's prior recorded testimony is admissible and does not violate the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause if the witness is unavailable and the defendant had an adequate prior opportunity for cross-examination. A witness who suffers a significant loss of memory concerning the subject of their prior testimony is considered "unavailable," even without expert testimony establishing the permanence of the memory loss.
Facts:
- Flores Amaya, a practicing attorney, was accused of soliciting his former client, Gregory Sprouse, to help find buyers for heroin.
- Sprouse reported the solicitation to the Drug Enforcement Agency (D.E.A.).
- The D.E.A. dispatched Special Agent Jeffrey Wood to act as an undercover buyer.
- On March 1, 1973, Amaya, Sprouse, and Agent Wood met at a restaurant to establish the procedures, price, and quantity for a heroin purchase.
- Agent Wood secretly recorded the majority of the conversation during this meeting.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Flores Amaya in federal district court on one count of conspiracy to distribute heroin.
- In the first trial, government witness Gregory Sprouse testified against Amaya, and a jury returned a guilty verdict.
- Amaya, as appellant, successfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction due to an improper jury instruction and remanded for a new trial.
- Prior to the second trial, Sprouse was injured in an automobile accident, resulting in a loss of memory regarding his prior testimony.
- The district court judge ruled that Sprouse was "unavailable" within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(3) and allowed his prior testimony to be read into the record.
- The jury in the second trial convicted Amaya.
- Amaya, as appellant, appealed his second conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which is the subject of this opinion.
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 testimony from a prior trial violate a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the witness is subsequently deemed unavailable due to a loss of memory?
Opinions:
Majority - Roney, Circuit Judge
No, the admission of the prior testimony does not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The use of former testimony is constitutionally permissible when the witness is shown to be unavailable and the defendant had an adequate opportunity for cross-examination at the previous trial. A witness who suffers from a loss of memory regarding their prior testimony is properly deemed "unavailable" under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(3). The court determined that establishing the permanence of the memory loss is not an absolute requirement; the illness need only be likely to last long enough that the trial cannot be reasonably postponed. Furthermore, an "adequate opportunity" for cross-examination does not require that the defendant be represented by the same counsel at both trials, only that competent counsel had the opportunity to conduct the cross-examination.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the meaning of "unavailability" under both the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. It establishes that a witness's genuine and significant memory loss can render them unavailable, thereby creating a key exception to the defendant's right to confront witnesses in person. This decision lowers the evidentiary burden for the party seeking to admit prior testimony, as it does not require conclusive expert proof that the memory loss is permanent. The ruling balances the defendant's confrontation rights against the practical necessities of litigation, ensuring that reliable, previously cross-examined testimony is not lost due to a witness's subsequent incapacitation.
