United States v. Roberto Serrano, Also Known as Eddie Roncone
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 1367, 69 Fed. R. Serv. 360, 434 F.3d 1003 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Documents containing a person's name and address are not considered hearsay and are admissible when offered as circumstantial evidence to link that person to a particular location, rather than to prove the truth of the matter asserted within the documents.
Facts:
- In February 2003, undercover officer Steven Espinoza purchased cocaine from Jose Hernandez at a residence located at 4506 Spatz Avenue in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
- Espinoza subsequently arranged to purchase one and a half kilograms of cocaine from Hernandez.
- On April 4, 2003, Espinoza and another officer met Hernandez at the Spatz Avenue residence, where Roberto Serrano was also present.
- During the transaction, Hernandez asked Serrano in Spanish for the location of the remaining half-kilogram of cocaine.
- Serrano pointed to a cabinet and stated the cocaine was 'in the corner,' from which Hernandez then retrieved it.
- Upon raiding the house, police discovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, and two handguns.
- Officers found automobile insurance documents bearing the alias 'Eddie Roncone' and the 4506 Spatz Avenue address inside the house and in the trash outside.
- A search of Serrano's wallet revealed an Indiana driver's license with his picture, the name Eddie Roncone, and the 4506 Spatz Avenue address.
Procedural Posture:
- Roberto Serrano was charged in U.S. District Court with aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine.
- At trial, the government introduced automobile insurance documents to link Serrano to the residence where the crime occurred.
- Serrano's counsel objected to the admission of these documents on the grounds that they were hearsay.
- The district court judge overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
- A jury convicted Serrano of the charged crime.
- Serrano (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, challenging the district court's evidentiary ruling. The United States was the 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:
Do documents, such as automobile insurance cards and correspondence bearing a defendant's name and address, constitute inadmissible hearsay when offered not for the truth of their contents but as circumstantial evidence to link the defendant to the premises where a crime occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Terence T. Evans
No. The insurance documents do not constitute inadmissible hearsay because they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The documents were admissible as circumstantial evidence to connect Serrano to the residence where the drug transaction occurred. The court reasoned that the probative value of the documents derived from where they were found—inside and just outside the house—not from the truth of their contents (e.g., that 'Eddie Roncone' had an active insurance policy). Citing precedent such as United States v. Thornton, the court explained that such items are frequently used to show a defendant's relationship to a particular place. The location of someone's personal papers creates a reasonable inference that the owner is affiliated with the premises, which was relevant to proving Serrano was not merely a casual, unwitting visitor but had knowledge of the drug enterprise.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between hearsay and non-hearsay circumstantial evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). It solidifies the principle that the admissibility of a statement often hinges on the purpose for which it is offered. By affirming that documents can be used to 'link' a defendant to a location, the ruling provides a clear precedent for prosecutors to establish a connection between a suspect and a crime scene without needing to overcome a hearsay objection, as long as the evidence's value comes from its physical context rather than its textual assertions. This impacts how defense attorneys must counter such evidence, likely by providing alternative explanations for the document's presence rather than simply objecting on hearsay grounds.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Roberto Serrano, Also Known as Eddie Roncone