United States v. Hoosier
542 F.2d 687 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B), a defendant's silence in response to an incriminating statement made by a third party in his presence may be considered an adoptive admission, and therefore not hearsay, if the circumstances were such that a reasonable person would have been expected to deny the statement if it were untrue.
Facts:
- A defendant told an acquaintance, Robert E. Rogers, that he was going to rob a bank.
- Subsequently, an armed robbery of a federally insured bank occurred in Clarksville, Tennessee.
- Four witnesses from the bank identified the defendant as the robber.
- Approximately three weeks after the robbery, Rogers saw the defendant with a large amount of money and wearing what appeared to be diamond rings.
- In the presence of both Rogers and the defendant, the defendant's girlfriend commented on his new wealth, stating, "That ain’t nothing, you should have seen the money we had in the hotel room," and mentioned "sacks of money."
- The defendant heard his girlfriend's statement but remained silent and did not protest or deny it.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was tried before a jury in a federal district court for armed robbery of a federally insured bank.
- During the trial, the prosecution introduced testimony from a witness regarding an incriminating statement made by the defendant's girlfriend in the defendant's presence.
- The defendant's counsel objected to the testimony, arguing it was inadmissible hearsay.
- The District Judge overruled the objection and admitted the statement into evidence.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The defendant, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court committed reversible error by admitting the 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 a defendant's silence in the presence of an incriminating statement made by a third party constitute an 'adoptive admission' under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B), thus making the statement non-hearsay and admissible in a criminal trial?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a defendant's silence in the presence of an incriminating statement can constitute an adoptive admission. The admissibility of such a statement depends on whether, under the totality of the circumstances, probable human behavior would have been to deny the statement if it were untrue. Here, the defendant had previously confided in the witness, Rogers, about his plan to rob a bank. This pre-existing relationship of trust makes it unlikely that the defendant's silence was motivated by legal advice or fear of self-incrimination. The court reasoned that in this specific context—among his girlfriend and a confidant—an innocent person would have promptly denied the girlfriend's incriminating claims. Therefore, the defendant's silence manifested a belief in the truth of the statement, making it admissible as an adoptive admission under FRE 801(d)(2)(B).
Analysis:
This decision provides a key interpretation of the adoptive admission by silence doctrine in criminal cases under the Federal Rules of Evidence. It clarifies that mere presence and silence are insufficient; the court must conduct a context-specific inquiry into whether the circumstances would provoke an innocent person to deny the accusation. The ruling emphasizes the importance of the relationship between the parties present and the unlikelihood of other motivations for silence, like legal counsel, in non-custodial settings. This case serves as a precedent for admitting such statements by focusing on a 'probable human behavior' standard, thereby shaping how trial courts evaluate the admissibility of tacit admissions.
