United States v. Mornan
413 F.3d 372 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), a witness's prior sworn statement may be admitted as a prior inconsistent statement if the trial court determines that the witness's assertion of memory loss at trial is feigned or otherwise not genuine.
Facts:
- Christopher Mornan was involved in a telemarketing scheme operating from Canada that targeted high-risk borrowers in the United States.
- Mornan and his co-conspirators placed newspaper ads offering loans, but required customers to first purchase a life or disability insurance policy to secure the loan.
- Customers sent money orders for these 'insurance premiums' but never received any loans or refunds.
- Mornan worked as an assistant manager and a 'closer,' using the alias 'Richard Harding' to convince customers to send money.
- A witness, Althea Burton, worked at a check-cashing service owned by her cousin, who was also involved in the scheme.
- In a sworn statement to a prosecutor in September 2001, Burton identified Mornan as an individual who routinely cashed the victims' money orders at the service.
- In August 2002, Burton was in a minor automobile accident for which she was not hospitalized or treated for memory loss.
- At Mornan's trial, Burton claimed she could not remember the particulars of her employment or her 2001 statement, attributing the memory loss to her car accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Mornan was charged in the U.S. District Court (trial court) with mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy.
- At trial, the government offered a prior sworn statement from witness Althea Burton after she claimed memory loss.
- Over the defense's objection, the District Court admitted the statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), finding Burton's memory loss was feigned.
- A jury found Mornan guilty on 15 of 18 counts.
- The District Court sentenced Mornan to 120 months in prison.
- Mornan (appellant) appealed the conviction and sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the admission of Burton's statement was an error.
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 witness's prior sworn statement qualify as a 'prior inconsistent statement' admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) when the witness claims at trial to have no memory of the subject matter, and the court finds the claimed memory loss to be feigned?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Antwerpen, J.
Yes. A witness's prior sworn statement is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A) where the witness feigns memory loss at trial. The court reasoned that while a genuine lack of memory may not be inconsistent with a prior statement, inconsistency under the rule is not limited to diametrically opposed statements. Joining several other circuits, the court held that a feigned memory loss can be treated as an inconsistency, giving trial courts considerable discretion to make this determination. Here, the district court reasonably concluded Burton's memory loss was feigned based on the minor nature of her car accident, the lack of medical treatment for memory loss, and her close family relationship with an indicted co-conspirator, which provided a motive for evasiveness.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Third Circuit with other federal circuits, establishing that a feigned memory loss can satisfy the 'inconsistency' requirement of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A). It reinforces the trial judge's role in assessing witness credibility to determine the admissibility of evidence. The ruling prevents witnesses from frustrating the introduction of their own prior sworn testimony by simply claiming a convenient inability to recall, thereby ensuring that prior, more reliable statements can be considered by the jury when a witness is recalcitrant or evasive on the stand.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Mornan