United States v. Webster
734 F.2d 1191 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 607, the prosecution may not call a witness it knows will provide no useful testimony for the sole purpose of introducing the witness's prior inconsistent statements as a 'mere subterfuge' to get otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence before the jury.
Facts:
- A federally insured bank was robbed.
- An individual named King committed the robbery.
- After being arrested, King provided statements to the FBI.
- In these statements to the FBI, King implicated Webster as having a role in the crime.
Procedural Posture:
- Webster was charged in a federal trial court with aiding and abetting a bank robbery and receiving stolen bank funds.
- The primary bank robber, King, pleaded guilty in a separate proceeding.
- At Webster's jury trial, the government called King as a witness.
- King gave testimony that, if believed, would have exculpated Webster.
- The government then introduced King's prior statements to the FBI, which contradicted his trial testimony and implicated Webster.
- The trial judge admitted the prior statements for the limited purpose of impeachment and instructed the jury accordingly.
- The jury convicted Webster, and the trial court sentenced him to nine years in prison.
- Webster (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals, arguing the government improperly used King's testimony as a subterfuge to admit hearsay.
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 607 permit the prosecution to call a witness it knows will give unfavorable testimony solely for the purpose of introducing otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence against the defendant under the guise of impeachment?
Opinions:
Majority - Posner, Circuit Judge
No. Federal Rule of Evidence 607 does not permit the prosecution to call a witness it knows will provide no useful evidence simply as a subterfuge to introduce hearsay. While Rule 607 allows any party to attack the credibility of its own witness, using this as a pretext to get inadmissible substantive evidence before a jury is an abuse of the rule. The court adopts the reasoning from other circuits that impeachment by prior inconsistent statement is not allowed when it is a 'mere subterfuge.' However, in this case, the prosecutor acted in good faith; she was uncertain what King would say and offered to question him outside the jury's presence, which the defense opposed. The court rejects a stricter 'surprise and harm' requirement for impeachment, finding the 'good faith' standard strikes a better balance and that defendants are still protected from undue prejudice by Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of Federal Rule of Evidence 607 by establishing a 'good faith' limitation on a party's ability to impeach its own witness. By aligning with other circuits, the court prevents the rule from being used as a back door to admit otherwise inadmissible hearsay. The court's rejection of the more rigid 'surprise and harm' test provides prosecutors with greater flexibility in managing potentially hostile witnesses, so long as their primary purpose for calling the witness is not simply to introduce their prior inconsistent statements. This holding underscores the importance of prosecutorial intent and protects the integrity of the rules against hearsay.
