United States v. Truman
2012 WL 3023804, 688 F.3d 129, 88 Fed. R. Serv. 1433 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A witness's refusal to answer questions at trial on a subject is considered an 'inconsistent statement' under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A), which permits their prior sworn testimony on that subject to be admitted as substantive, nonhearsay evidence.
Facts:
- In November 2005, Jeffrey E. Truman, Sr. and his partners purchased a vacant commercial building in Oneida, New York, which was insured for up to $4,250,000 against fire loss.
- Truman learned the property was worth as much or more without the building on it, and subsequently told an employee the building was 'worth more to me down than it is standing.'
- By the fall of 2006, Truman and his company were in severe financial distress, facing large payments due on November 17, 2006, the same day the building's insurance policy was set to expire.
- On November 12, 2006, the building was destroyed by a fire that investigators determined was arson.
- Truman had previously asked his son, Jeffrey Truman, Jr., to set the fire and had purchased gasoline and kerosene, leaving them inside the building for his son to use.
- After Truman, Jr. set the fire, Truman, Sr. met him and helped him dispose of the sweatshirt and shoes he wore during the arson.
- In December 2006, Truman, Jr. confessed to police that he had burned the building at his father’s direction.
- In February 2007, Truman, Sr. and his business partners filed an insurance claim for the destroyed building.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Truman, Jr. was convicted in New York state court for third-degree arson.
- Jeffrey E. Truman, Sr. was tried in state court on related charges, but the case was dismissed because state law required corroboration of accomplice testimony, which prosecutors could not provide.
- The United States Government subsequently obtained a federal indictment against Truman, Sr. for aiding and abetting arson, mail fraud, and other charges.
- At Truman, Sr.'s federal trial, his son, Truman, Jr., refused to answer questions that would directly implicate his father.
- The prosecution introduced Truman, Jr.'s prior state court testimony, in which he had implicated his father, as a prior inconsistent statement.
- The federal jury convicted Truman, Sr. on four counts.
- Following the verdict, Truman, Sr. filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal and, in the alternative, for a new trial.
- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York granted the motion for acquittal and conditionally granted the motion for a new trial.
- The Government appealed the District Court's orders to the U.S. 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 a witness's refusal to testify at trial on a subject render their prior sworn testimony on that same subject 'inconsistent' and therefore admissible as nonhearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A)?
Opinions:
Majority - Lohier, Circuit Judge
Yes. A witness's refusal to answer questions about a subject at trial is inconsistent with their prior sworn testimony on that subject, making the prior testimony admissible as nonhearsay evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A). The court held that the purpose of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) is to protect against a 'turncoat witness' who changes their story or refuses to testify, and that a refusal to speak is fundamentally inconsistent with prior detailed testimony. The court also clarified that the witness was 'subject to cross-examination' because he was present and answered defense counsel's questions about the prior testimony, even if he refused to answer the prosecution's questions on direct. Furthermore, the court rejected the district court's finding that the witness's testimony was 'incredible as a matter of law,' reaffirming that assessing witness credibility is the exclusive province of the jury unless the testimony defies physical realities. The court also found that any prosecutorial misconduct during trial was not severe enough to warrant a new trial given the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the meaning of 'inconsistent' under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) to include a witness's refusal to testify. It provides a powerful tool for prosecutors when a key witness, who has previously provided sworn testimony, becomes uncooperative on the stand. By preventing a 'turncoat witness' from derailing a case through silence, the ruling ensures that prior, reliable sworn statements can be presented to the jury. This strengthens the principle that credibility is a jury question and limits a judge's power to overturn a verdict based on their own assessment of a witness's believability.
