Williamson v. United States
512 U.S. 594 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, does not permit the admission of a declarant's entire narrative. Only those specific, individual remarks within the narrative that are distinctly self-inculpatory are admissible.
Facts:
- A deputy sheriff stopped Reginald Harris for erratic driving.
- Harris consented to a search of his rental car, which revealed 19 kilograms of cocaine in the trunk.
- Following his arrest, Harris told DEA Agent Donald Walton that the cocaine belonged to Fredel Williamson and was to be delivered to a specific dumpster.
- Hours later, Harris elaborated, claiming he got the drugs from a Cuban acquaintance of Williamson and was given a note with delivery instructions.
- As Agent Walton prepared a controlled delivery based on this story, Harris recanted, admitting he had lied about the Cuban, the note, and the dumpster.
- Harris then provided a new account, stating he was transporting the cocaine for Williamson, who was driving in a separate car ahead of him.
- Harris claimed Williamson had turned around and witnessed the police stop from a distance.
- Harris stated he had initially lied out of fear of Williamson.
Procedural Posture:
- Fredel Williamson was charged with drug offenses in the U.S. District Court.
- At trial, the declarant, Reginald Harris, refused to testify after being granted use immunity and was held in contempt of court.
- The District Court ruled that Agent Walton's testimony recounting Harris's out-of-court statements was admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against interest, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3).
- A jury convicted Williamson.
- Williamson (appellant) appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, challenging the admission of Harris's statements.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in an unwritten order.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Williamson's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve the scope of Rule 804(b)(3).
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 the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), permit the admission of only the specific self-inculpatory remarks within a confession, or can it include non-self-inculpatory statements that are part of the same narrative?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
The hearsay exception for statements against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3) does not allow the admission of non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory. The Rule's text defines 'statement' as a single declaration or remark, not an entire narrative. The underlying principle of the exception is that reasonable people do not make self-damaging statements unless they are true; this rationale does not extend to neutral or blame-shifting portions of a confession. Statements by accomplices that implicate others are viewed with 'special suspicion' because of the strong motivation to curry favor or shift blame. A district court must analyze each declaration within a larger narrative to determine if it is individually self-inculpatory, viewing it in the context of all surrounding circumstances.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
Rule 804(b)(3) allows admission of only those specific remarks that are individually self-inculpatory, not an entire extended declaration. This narrow interpretation does not 'eviscerate' the exception, as many statements can be self-inculpatory without being a direct confession. The context is critical; a statement like 'I bought a handgun' can be highly inculpatory if connected to a robbery. The admissibility of a statement that names another person depends on whether that specific remark meets the Rule's standard, not on manufactured categories like 'collateral neutral' or 'collateral self-serving'.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
The exception applies only to individually self-inculpatory declarations. However, in this case, none of Harris's statements should have been admitted. Harris was caught red-handed and had a strong incentive to shift blame to Williamson to minimize his own role and hope for leniency. His statements project an image of a person striving to shift principal responsibility to someone else, rendering even the arguably inculpatory portions untrustworthy because they are too closely intertwined with his self-serving declarations.
Concurring - Justice Kennedy
Rule 804(b)(3) should be interpreted more broadly to allow the admission of statements that are collateral to the precise words against interest, which is consistent with the common law and the Advisory Committee's Note. The majority's narrow reading, which excludes all collateral statements, 'eviscerates' the exception and renders it almost meaningless for inculpatory statements. The proper approach would be to admit collateral neutral statements that are part of the same narrative, while excluding only those that are clearly self-serving (e.g., shifting blame) or were made to authorities with a significant motivation to curry favor. Because the lower court did not apply this analysis, the case should be remanded.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrowed the application of the statement-against-interest hearsay exception. By rejecting the 'whole narrative' approach, the Court established a requirement for a line-by-line, fact-intensive inquiry into an accomplice's confession. This makes it more difficult for prosecutors to introduce out-of-court statements from one co-conspirator that implicate another, thereby bolstering a defendant's protections under the Confrontation Clause. The decision forces trial courts to act as gatekeepers, carefully parsing confessions to separate genuinely self-inculpatory remarks from those that may be neutral or designed to shift blame.
Unlock the full brief for Williamson v. United States