United States v. Lopez-Medina
81 Fed. R. Serv. 623, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 3349, 596 F.3d 716 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal defendant waives their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights when defense counsel purposefully and explicitly introduces otherwise inadmissible testimonial hearsay, thereby 'opening the door' and allowing the government to introduce further evidence on the same topic for context.
Facts:
- In 2005, police began investigating a residence in Layton, Utah, for suspected drug distribution.
- Searches of the residence's trash revealed items associated with drug distribution, including baggies with methamphetamine residue and cutting agents.
- On July 29, 2005, police executed a search warrant at the Layton residence and found Gerardo Lopez-Medina present in the upstairs apartment.
- On August 4, 2005, Lopez-Medina met with an apartment manager, Scott Cunningham, to rent an apartment in Clearfield, Utah, and during the conversation, claimed ownership of a green pickup truck parked nearby.
- That same day, a confidential informant told police that Lopez-Medina was moving to the Clearfield apartment complex and had hidden fifteen pounds of methamphetamine in the gas tank of the green pickup truck.
- On August 5, 2005, police obtained a warrant and searched the truck, discovering twelve packages of methamphetamine in a false compartment in the gas tank and in the cab.
- Police found Lopez-Medina's fingerprint on a cell phone bill on the truck's front seat, along with other mail addressed to the Layton residence.
- The next day, police encountered Lopez-Medina's half-brother, Rogelio Lopez-Ahumado, at the Clearfield apartment; Lopez-Ahumado had keys to the truck and a quarter-pound of methamphetamine was found in his apartment.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerardo Lopez-Medina and Rogelio Lopez-Ahumado were charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah with possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute.
- Lopez-Ahumado pled guilty, submitting a factual statement that he aided and abetted Lopez-Medina in jointly possessing the drugs.
- Lopez-Medina proceeded to trial.
- Before trial, the government filed a motion in limine regarding the admissibility of Lopez-Ahumado's conviction and plea statement, and the court indicated that if the defense introduced the conviction, the government could introduce the plea statement.
- During the trial, defense counsel questioned an officer about Lopez-Ahumado's conviction and about information received from a confidential informant, leading the court to allow the government to introduce the full plea statement and other informant statements.
- The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
- The district court denied Lopez-Medina's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 235 months imprisonment.
- Lopez-Medina (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with the United States as appellee.
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 criminal defendant waive their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights by intentionally questioning a witness about otherwise inadmissible testimonial hearsay from an absent declarant, thereby opening the door to the government introducing further statements from that declarant?
Opinions:
Majority - O'Brien, Circuit Judge
Yes, a criminal defendant waives their Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights when their counsel intentionally elicits testimonial hearsay. The court reasoned that defense counsel made a tactical and explicit decision to question a police officer about statements from an absent confidential informant. Counsel stated his 'full intention' to 'bring in the confidential informant information' and that he didn't 'care what door we open.' This constituted an intentional relinquishment of a known right, which operated as a limited waiver and 'opened the door' for the prosecution to introduce related evidence on the same topic to provide context and prevent the jury from being misled. The court held that the Confrontation Clause is a shield, not a sword, and cannot be used to selectively present evidence while blocking the opposing party from providing a complete picture. The court also held that the admission of a co-defendant's plea allocution was proper under the rule of completeness after the defense introduced evidence of the conviction to imply the co-defendant was solely responsible.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'opening the door' doctrine as a valid waiver of Confrontation Clause rights within the Tenth Circuit, creating a split with other circuits like the Sixth. It establishes that a defendant cannot strategically introduce favorable portions of inadmissible testimonial hearsay and then use the Confrontation Clause to shield the jury from hearing clarifying or unfavorable portions of the same evidence. This holding limits the ability of defense counsel to mislead the jury through selective questioning and reinforces the trial court's authority to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence to ensure fairness and completeness. The case serves as a critical warning about the tactical risks of exploring prohibited areas of testimony, as such actions can nullify fundamental constitutional protections.
