United States v. James Raymond Faison
679 F.2d 292 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a key witness is unavailable due to a temporary illness, a trial court abuses its discretion if it admits the witness's prior testimony without first properly considering and weighing a reasonable adjournment against factors like the witness's importance, the nature of the illness, and the expected recovery time.
Facts:
- James Raymond Faison, a New Jersey resident, operated an auto-body shop in New York City.
- Faison obtained blank checks stolen from the American Foundation for the Blind, which had offices in New York City.
- Faison asked Cal Mancuso, a New Jersey resident, to help him cash the stolen checks in a fraudulent scheme.
- The two men planned the scheme through in-person meetings in New Jersey and telephone conversations between Faison in New York and Mancuso in New Jersey.
- Mancuso recruited Michael Selvanto in New Jersey to help cash the checks, but Selvanto was secretly a cooperating informant for the FBI.
- Faison gave Selvanto his New York business telephone number with instructions to call him there when news about the scheme broke.
- Selvanto, from an FBI office in New Jersey, made two recorded telephone calls to Faison at his business in New York to arrange a meeting to distribute the scheme's proceeds.
- Faison traveled from New York to New Jersey to deliver the stolen checks to Mancuso.
Procedural Posture:
- James Raymond Faison and Cal Mancuso were charged with wire fraud and other federal offenses in the United States District Court.
- Mancuso entered a guilty plea and testified as a government witness at Faison's first trial.
- The first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a verdict.
- Prior to the second trial, Mancuso was hospitalized for a heart condition, rendering him unable to testify.
- The district court denied Faison's motion for an adjournment to allow Mancuso to recover.
- The court permitted the prosecution to introduce the transcript of Mancuso's testimony from the first trial as evidence in the second trial.
- The jury found Faison guilty on all counts.
- Faison, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing the court erred in admitting the prior 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 trial court abuse its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 804 by admitting the prior testimony of a key prosecution witness who is temporarily unavailable due to a medical condition, without granting a continuance based in part on an erroneous understanding of the Speedy Trial Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibbons, J.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by admitting the prior testimony of a key, temporarily unavailable witness without properly considering a reasonable adjournment. The trial court's discretion was improperly exercised because its refusal to grant a continuance was based, at least in part, on an erroneous understanding of the Speedy Trial Act, believing that a delay for the witness's illness might not be excludable time. The court failed to conduct and articulate a balancing of relevant factors, including the importance of the witness, the nature of the prior cross-examination, the witness's medical condition and prognosis, and the competing interests in live testimony versus a speedy trial. Because the witness, Mancuso, was crucial to the prosecution's case and the first trial resulted in a hung jury, the court should have been especially careful not to dispense with live testimony. The court also held that federal jurisdiction was proper because the interstate phone calls were integral to the criminal scheme initiated by Faison and were not artificially manufactured by the government.
Concurring - Becker, J.
Yes. While the majority's conclusion is correct, the analysis should be grounded in the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause rather than the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Confrontation Clause imposes a more exacting standard for determining witness unavailability in a criminal prosecution than Rule 804(a)(4). The preference for face-to-face confrontation and the jury's ability to assess witness demeanor are constitutional values that demand a more stringent inquiry before a defendant's right to confront an accuser is denied. Therefore, the trial court's failure to grant a reasonable continuance was not merely an abuse of evidentiary discretion but an infringement of Faison's constitutional rights.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear framework for trial courts when a key witness becomes temporarily unavailable due to illness, reinforcing the preference for live testimony in criminal trials. It clarifies that a court's discretion is not absolute and must be exercised based on a correct understanding of applicable law, such as the Speedy Trial Act. By requiring judges to articulate their reasoning on the record when weighing factors for a continuance, the holding provides a standard for appellate review and protects defendants' confrontation rights. The opinion also narrows the scope of the 'manufactured jurisdiction' defense from United States v. Archer, distinguishing cases where interstate facilities are used as a natural consequence of the defendant's own actions from those where the government artificially creates the interstate element.
