United States v. Saada
212 F.3d 210 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 806 does not create an exception to Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b)'s prohibition on using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of misconduct to attack a witness's character for truthfulness, even when the witness is a hearsay declarant unavailable to testify.
Facts:
- Isaac Saada and his son, Neil Saada, owned a business, Scrimshaw Handicrafts, that was in significant financial distress, with the Saadas personally liable for a $3.8 million debt.
- In 1990, the Saadas enlisted Isaac's cousin, Ezra Rishty, a public adjuster with a history of insurance fraud, to help them orchestrate a scheme.
- Rishty recruited Morris Beyda and Sal Marchello, an adjuster for Scrimshaw's insurer, Chubb Insurance Group.
- On November 28, 1990, Neil Saada and Beyda intentionally broke a sprinkler head in Scrimshaw's warehouse, causing a flood to damage merchandise.
- At the time of the incident, Isaac Saada was in his office with Tom Yaccarino, a Scrimshaw vice-president and former judge.
- The Saadas submitted a fraudulent insurance claim to Chubb, which included undamaged items and was supported by forged invoices.
- During Chubb's investigation, the Saadas lied about their financial status and concealed their familial relationship with Rishty.
- Chubb paid the Saadas $865,000 on the fraudulent claim, of which $270,000 was paid to Rishty for his role.
Procedural Posture:
- Isaac Saada and Neil Saada were charged by indictment in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey with conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud.
- At trial, the defense introduced an exculpatory hearsay statement from the deceased Tom Yaccarino, which the trial court admitted under the excited utterance exception.
- Over the defense's objection, the District Court admitted extrinsic evidence, in the form of judicially noticed state supreme court decisions, detailing Yaccarino's prior unethical conduct for the purpose of impeaching his credibility.
- A jury convicted the Saadas on four counts.
- The Saadas filed a post-sentencing motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence of a government witness's misconduct, which the District Court denied.
- The Saadas, as appellants, appealed their convictions and the denial of their new trial motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the evidentiary rulings and other trial issues.
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 Federal Rule of Evidence 806 permit the introduction of extrinsic evidence of a hearsay declarant's specific instances of misconduct for impeachment purposes, creating an exception to Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b)'s general ban on such evidence, when the declarant is unavailable to testify?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, District Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 806 does not modify Rule 608(b)’s ban on extrinsic evidence of prior bad acts to impeach a hearsay declarant, even when the declarant is unavailable to testify. The court reasoned that the plain language of the rules dictates this result. Rule 806 allows for the impeachment of a hearsay declarant by any evidence that would be admissible if the declarant had testified as a witness. Rule 608(b) explicitly forbids proving specific instances of conduct with extrinsic evidence, permitting such inquiry only through cross-examination. The court rejected the argument that a declarant's unavailability creates a necessity-based exception, noting that Rule 806 does explicitly create an exception for prior inconsistent statements (waiving the Rule 613 requirement) but is silent regarding Rule 608(b), indicating no similar exception was intended. Upholding the ban on extrinsic evidence serves its purpose of avoiding mini-trials on collateral matters and preventing unfair surprise. Although the district court erred in admitting the judicially noticed court opinions about Yaccarino's misconduct, the error was harmless because the defense was permitted to introduce rehabilitating evidence (Yaccarino's obituary) and the court gave a limiting instruction to the jury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the Third Circuit's interpretation of the interplay between Federal Rules of Evidence 806 and 608(b), aligning with the D.C. Circuit's view and clarifying a point of potential conflict with dicta from the Second Circuit. It establishes a bright-line rule that the prohibition against using extrinsic evidence of misconduct for impeachment is absolute, with no exception for unavailable hearsay declarants. This holding reinforces the policy of avoiding collateral mini-trials and forces litigants seeking to impeach an unavailable declarant to use other methods, such as reputation or opinion testimony (Rule 608(a)), prior convictions (Rule 609), or inconsistent statements (Rule 613/806).
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Saada