United States v. Michael Medico
1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13238, 557 F.2d 309 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5), the residual exception, a hearsay statement not covered by a specific exception may be admissible in a criminal trial if it possesses circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to the enumerated exceptions, is offered as evidence of a material fact, is more probative than any other reasonably available evidence, and its admission serves the interests of justice.
Facts:
- On May 27, 1976, two masked men, one with a shotgun, robbed a Chemical Bank in Queens, New York, stealing nearly $23,000.
- Approximately five minutes after the robbers fled, a bank employee, William Carmody, was inside the locked bank.
- An unidentified bank customer outside the bank relayed information to Carmody through the door about the getaway car.
- The customer was getting the information from another unidentified young man sitting in a nearby car who had witnessed the vehicle.
- The information relayed was that the getaway car was a 'tan Dodge Valiant' with license plate number '700 CQA', which Carmody immediately wrote down on his checkbook.
- William Cariola, a former co-worker of the appellant Medico, testified that he had seen Medico driving an off-white Dodge with the license plate number 700 CQA.
- On June 2, 1976, FBI agents went to the apartment Medico shared with his wife, Maria Medico.
- Maria Medico signed a form consenting to a search of the apartment, during which agents seized cartridges, lead fragments from the walls, and a pair of red pants with bullet holes.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant, Medico, was indicted for armed bank robbery.
- Medico's counsel filed a pre-trial motion to suppress evidence from a photographic identification and evidence seized from his apartment.
- The U.S. District Court held a suppression hearing and denied the motion, finding the photo array was proper and the consent to search was voluntary.
- During the subsequent jury trial, the district court admitted hearsay testimony identifying the getaway car, over the defendant's objection.
- The jury convicted Medico.
- Medico (appellant) appealed his 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 the admission of double hearsay testimony identifying a getaway car, provided by two unavailable declarants, violate the Federal Rules of Evidence when admitted under the residual hearsay exception, Rule 804(b)(5)?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
No. The admission of the hearsay testimony did not violate the Federal Rules of Evidence because it properly falls within the residual exception of Rule 804(b)(5). The court reasoned that the statement possessed sufficient circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness because the declarants were at the scene and the information was relayed and recorded almost contemporaneously with the event, minimizing the likelihood of fabrication. Furthermore, the testimony was material, highly probative, and necessary, as the government made reasonable but unsuccessful efforts to locate the two declarants. The court also held that the search of Medico's apartment was constitutional because his wife's consent was freely and voluntarily given under the totality of the circumstances, despite her psychological vulnerability and claims of drug use.
Dissenting - Mansfield, J.
Yes. The admission of the double hearsay testimony violated the Federal Rules of Evidence because it lacked any guarantee of trustworthiness required for the residual exception. The dissent argued that eyewitness identification is fraught with potential errors, which are compounded when the information is relayed through multiple people. The defendant was deprived of his fundamental right to cross-examine the declarants to test their perception, memory, and credibility. Admitting such unreliable evidence under the residual exception, which is meant for rare and exceptional circumstances, effectively emasculates the hearsay rule and its underlying principles of fairness and reliability.
Analysis:
This case provides an important early interpretation of the residual hearsay exception under the Federal Rules of Evidence, establishing that trial courts have discretion to admit hearsay that does not fit a traditional exception if it has strong indicia of reliability and necessity. The majority's flexible, fact-intensive approach contrasts with the dissent's stricter view, which prioritizes the right to confrontation and fears the erosion of the hearsay rule. This decision set a precedent for a more functional analysis of trustworthiness for hearsay evidence, influencing how courts would apply the 'catch-all' exceptions in subsequent criminal cases.
