United States v. Michael Griffith

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
385 F.3d 124, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 20688, 2004 WL 2211594 (2004)

ELI5:

Sections

Rule of Law:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3153, statements made by a defendant to pretrial services officers are confidential regarding the issue of substantive guilt but are admissible for the purpose of impeaching the defendant's credibility if they testify at trial.

Facts:

Officer Deighan observed Griffith and another man sitting on a staircase where one was drinking alcohol.
When the officer approached the men, they immediately fled toward a basement door.
As Griffith pushed open the door, he removed a handgun from his waistband and tossed it aside before entering the basement apartment.
Officers pursued the men into the apartment, apprehended them, and recovered the firearm.
Following his arrest, Griffith participated in an interview with a pretrial services officer.
During this interview, Griffith claimed he was a U.S. citizen holding a passport and denied using illegal drugs while on supervision.
The government possessed contrary evidence indicating Griffith was not a citizen and had tested positive for marijuana use.
Griffith chose to testify in his own defense at trial.

Procedural Posture:

The government charged Griffith with possession of a firearm as a felon in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
During trial, the government sought to cross-examine Griffith regarding false statements made to pretrial services.
Griffith objected to the admission of these statements, citing the confidentiality provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3153.
The District Court overruled the objection and admitted the statements for impeachment purposes.
The jury convicted Griffith of the firearms offense.
Griffith appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

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 18 U.S.C. § 3153, which mandates that information obtained by pretrial services is confidential and inadmissible on the 'issue of guilt,' prohibit the government from using a defendant's false statements to pretrial services to impeach the defendant's credibility during cross-examination?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr.

No, the statute does not bar the use of pretrial services statements when used solely for impeachment. The court reasoned that 18 U.S.C. § 3153 constitutes an exception to the general rule that relevant evidence is admissible, and such exceptions must be construed narrowly to avoid derogating the search for truth. By adopting a 'plain meaning' interpretation, the court distinguished between using evidence on the 'issue of guilt' (substantive proof of the crime) versus using it to attack 'credibility' (impeachment). Citing the Eighth Circuit's decision in United States v. Wilson and Supreme Court precedents like Harris v. New York, the court held that policy-based exclusionary rules cannot be utilized to shield a defendant's perjury or untruthfulness on the witness stand.

Analysis:

This decision addresses a matter of first impression in the Second Circuit, aligning it with the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of the pretrial services statute. It reinforces a significant legal principle that statutory confidentiality protections in the criminal justice system are not absolute. While defendants are encouraged to be open with pretrial services for bail determinations, this ruling ensures that they cannot exploit that confidentiality to commit perjury at trial without facing contradiction. It underscores the judicial system's prioritization of truthful testimony over collateral policy interests when a defendant voluntarily takes the stand.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Michael Griffith (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"