United States v. Morgan
581 F.2d 933 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When the government indicates in a sworn affidavit to a judicial officer that it believes an informant's statements are trustworthy for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant, it has manifested a belief in the truth of those statements, and they are therefore not hearsay and are admissible against the government as an adoptive admission by a party-opponent under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B).
Facts:
- Based on a reliable informant's tip, Detective Mathis obtained a search warrant for a single-family dwelling.
- The informant told Mathis that a man known as 'Timmy' was selling drugs from inside the house and that the informant had made a 'controlled buy' of phenmetrazine pills from Timmy there within the past 48 hours.
- When police executed the warrant, they found William Morgan and several other people in the house, but not Timmy.
- Officers alleged that Morgan, while holding a dog's leash, threw pink pills from his pocket onto the floor and tried to mash them with his foot.
- Police recovered twelve phenmetrazine pills from the floor where Morgan stood.
- A search of the basement, which Morgan regularly entered to feed and exercise dogs, uncovered 77 more phenmetrazine pills and over $4,000 in cash hidden in a ceiling and a fuse box.
- Morgan testified that he did not live at the house, was there to meet a friend, and had no knowledge of any drugs.
Procedural Posture:
- William Morgan was prosecuted by the United States in the U.S. District Court for possession of phenmetrazine with intent to distribute.
- During the trial, defense counsel attempted to introduce statements from the police affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, which indicated that a person named 'Timmy' was selling drugs from the house.
- The trial judge excluded this evidence, ruling that it was irrelevant and inadmissible hearsay.
- The jury convicted William Morgan.
- Morgan, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 statement from a government informant, contained within a police officer's sworn affidavit used to obtain a search warrant, qualify as a non-hearsay adoptive admission by the government under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) when offered as exculpatory evidence by the defendant?
Opinions:
Majority - Bazelon, J.
Yes. A statement from an informant contained in a government affidavit for a search warrant is not hearsay when offered by the defendant because the government has manifested its adoption or belief in the statement's truth. By submitting the informant's statements to a magistrate in a sworn affidavit and characterizing them as reliable, the government adopted them as its own position. Therefore, under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B), the government cannot later object to their introduction on hearsay grounds. The evidence was also highly relevant because it suggested that a third party, 'Timmy,' was the drug dealer in residence, which could have led the jury to conclude that Morgan was not the person who possessed the drugs with intent to distribute.
Concurring - MacKinnon, J.
Yes. I concur that the statement in the government's affidavit is not hearsay under Rule 801(d)(2)(B) and was admissible. However, I write separately to clarify that the majority's references to the absence of fingerprint evidence should not be seen as weakening the government's case, as the items involved were not conducive to retaining prints. Furthermore, verdicts based on strong circumstantial evidence are common and reliable in narcotics prosecutions and should not be denigrated. It is also immaterial which quantity of pills the jury based its verdict on, as either was sufficient to support the charge, and possession can be joint, not just exclusive.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant principle of evidentiary symmetry in criminal law, holding that the government, as a party-opponent, is subject to the adoptive admission rule. By preventing the prosecution from vouching for a statement's reliability to obtain a warrant and then disclaiming it as hearsay at trial, the decision provides a crucial mechanism for defendants to introduce potentially exculpatory evidence. This ruling strengthens the defendant's ability to present an alternative perpetrator theory using the government's own foundational evidence. It solidifies the application of the Federal Rules of Evidence to the prosecution in the same manner as they apply to other litigants.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Morgan