2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-14-2009 

# Govt of the VI v

. M uir uri P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4166

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Govt of the VI v

. M uir ur i " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 813. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/813NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 08- 4166

____________ GOVE RN M E NT OF T HE VI RG I N I S L ANDS

v. S W A L E H M U IR U R I,

A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D is tr ic t C o u rt o f th e V ir g in Is la n d s , D iv is io n o f

S t. T h o m a s & S t. J o h n , A ppel l at e D i vi s i on ( D . C . C r i m A pp. N o. 2002- 36) H o n o ra b le R a ym o n d L . F in c h , H o n o ra b le C u rt is V . G o m e z , H o n o ra b le P a tricia D . S tee le

____________ A r gued A pr i l 21, 2009 B e f o re : B A R R Y , H A R D IM A N a n d C O W E N , C i r cui tJudges .

( Fi l ed: A ugus t14, 2009) T iffa n yV . R o b inso n , E sq . [A rgu ed ] D ol ace M cLean, E s q. O ffi ce of A t t or neyG ener al of V i r gi n I s l ands D epart m entof J us t i ce 34- 38 K r onpr i nds ens G ade, G E R S C om pl ex, 2nd Fl oor C h a rlo tte A m a lie St . T hom as , V I 00802 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ee A dam K . G us m an, E s q. [A r gued] C hr i s t opherA . K r obl i n, E s q.2

L a w O f f ice s o f K a rin A . B e n tz 18 D r onni ngens G ade Sui t e 8 St . T hom as , V I 00802 A t t or neys f

orAppel l ant

____________

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge . S w aleh M u iru ri ap p ea ls his j u d g m en t of co n v ict ion , arg u ing that the D istri ct C o u rt comm i t t ed r ever s i bl e err orw hen i tadmi t t ed hea r s ayt es t i m onyi nt o evi dence . W e agr ee t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n t hi s r egar d and thatt hes e err or s w er e notharm l es s . Si nce M ui rur i had bee n i ncar cer at ed fors om e ei ghty ear s , on A pr i l 22, 2009, t he dayaft eror al ar gum ent , w e vac at ed M ui rur i ’ s convi ct i on and or der ed hi s r el eas e. W e now expl ai n t he re a so n s in su p p o rt o f

o u r ju d g m e n t. I. O n t he ni ghtof A ugus t7, 2000, D aw n Fi s cus s t or m ed outof a ba ri n t he R ed H ook a re a o f S t. T h o m a s, U .S . V irg in Isla n d s, f o llo w in g a n a rg u m e n t w ith h e r h u sb a n d . W h ile F isc u s w a s w a lk in g d o w n th e ro a d , M u iru ri p u lled a lo n g sid e a n d o f f e re d h e r a rid e in h is unl i cens ed “t axi . ” Fi s cus decl i ned M ui rur i ’ s offe r . Soon t her eaf t er , M ui rur i r etur ned and im p lo re d F isc u s to a llo w h im to d riv e h e r h o m e . F isc u s e n ter e d th e v e h icle a n d th e p a ir dr ove t o s ever al l ocat i ons w her e theyr epea t edl yhad s exual i nt er cour s e.T h e ju rya c q u itt e d M u iru ri o f tw o k id n a p p in g c h a rg e s, a p p a re n tlyc re d iti n g h is 1 tes tim o n yo v e r F isc u s’s tes tim o n yin th is re sp e c t. 3 M ui rur i t es t i fi ed thatFi s cus fr eel ygoti nt o hi s vehi cl e and thatthe s ex w as cons ens ual . Fi s cus , on t he otherhand, cl ai m s t hatM ui rur i for ced he ri nt o hi s vehi cl e at g u n p o int an d then rap ed h er rep ea tedly . A t tri al, F iscu s ad m itted th at sh e told M u iru ri th a t th e s e x w a s “ v e ry g o o d ,” “ w o n d e rf u l,” a n d “ th e b e s t [ s h e ] e v e r h a d .” A p p . 3 1 9 . F iscu s also m ad e o ther statem en ts co n sist en t w ith a c o n sen su al sex u al en co u n ter, in c lu d in g th a n k in g M u iru ri “ f o r a lo v e lye v e n in g ,” A p p . 3 2 8 , 3 3 2 , an d in stru c ted h im to dr op heroff out s i de the entr ance t o hercondomi ni um compl ex s o M ui rur i w oul d notbe s e e n b yt h e s e c u r i t yg u a r d a n d s o F i s c u s ’ s h u s b a n d wo u l d n o tl e a r n o f t h e i re n c o u n t e r . As s oon as M ui rur i dr opped heroff, how ever , Fi s cus r an t o t he guar d s hack s cr eami ng t hat sh e h ad b ee n rap ed an d sh o u ti n g o u t M u iru ri ’s l icen se p lat e n u m b er. Fi s cus t es t i fi ed thatt he s t at ement s s he made cons i s t entw i t h a cons ens ual s exual encount erw er e mer el ya fa cade t o paci fyherat t acke r , as s he had be en t aughti n nur s i ng s chool . She t es t i fi ed thatM ui rur i abduct ed heratgunpoi ntand phy s i cal l yr es t r ai ned her from escapi ng several t i m es. 1 In su m , the c a se p re se n ted c o n tra d icto ryf a c tu a l sc e n a rio s th a t re q u ire d th e ju ryto di s cern w hethert he ac cus er ’ s t es t i m onyt hatt he enc ount erw as notcons ens ual w as c re d ib le a n d , if s o , w h e th e r g u ilth a d b e e n p ro v e n b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t. O v er M u iru ri ’s rep ea ted o b jecti o n s, the tri al j u d g e a d m itted in to ev iden ce : ( 1 ) a w ri tt en stat em en t byF iscu s d etail ing h er v ersion o f th e e n co u n ter; (2) a sec u ri tyg u ard ’s4

out - of- cour ts t at ementt o Fi s cus ’ s hus band thats he had be en r aped; and ( 3) t es t i m ony a b o u t th e in v e stig a tio n f ro m a law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f ice r w h o v isited th e c rim e sc e n e w ith F isc u s. T h e ju ryre tu rn e d a m ix e d v e rd ict, c o n v ictin g M u iru ri o f u n law f u l se x u a l co n tac t, one countof as s aul t , and tw o count s of r ape, butacqui t t i ng hi m of fa l s e i m pr i s onm ent and ki dnappi ng, ki dnappi ng forr ape, anothercountof as s aul t , and tw o othercount s of r ape. Pur s uantt o 48 U . S. C . §§ 1613a( a) - ( b) , M ui rur i appea l ed hi s convi ct i on t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tof the V i r gi n I s l ands . Si x y ear s l at er , t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on aff

i r m ed and M ui rur i appea l ed t o t hi s C our tpur s uantt o 28 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 an d 4 8 U . S . C . § 1 6 1 3 a(c ). II. M u iru ri a rg u e s th a t th e a f o re m e n tio n e d o u t-o f

-c o u rt sta tem e n ts w e re in a d m iss ib le u n d e r th e h e a rsa yru le. “ W h e th e r a sta tem e n t is h e a rsa yis a leg a l q u e stio n su b jec t to p len a ryre v iew . If

th e d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyc las sif ies a sta tem e n t as h e a rsa y , it s appl i cat i on of the r el evanthear s ayexce pt i ons i s s ubj ectt o r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 4 5 8 F .3 d 2 0 2 , 2 0 5 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ). T he def er ent i al abus e of di s cr et i on s t andar d i s m etonl yw hen “the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s act i on w a s a rb itrar y , fa n c if

u l o r c lea rlyu n re a so n a b le” ; in o th e r w o rd s, w h e n “ n o re a so n a b le per s on w oul d adoptt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s vi ew . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Fr az i er , 469 F. 3d 85, 87- 8 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).5 A. T he fi r s tques t i on pr es ent ed i s w hethert he w r i t t en s t at ementFi s cus gave t o t he pol i ce the dayaft ert he enc ount erw as admi s s i bl e underFeder al R ul e of Evi dence 8 0 1 (d )( 1 )( B ), w h ic h e x c lu d e s p ri o r c o n s is te n t s ta te m e n ts f ro m th e d e f

in itio n o f h e a rs a y . A l t hough R ul e 801 def

i nes hear s ayand w e gene r al l yconductpl enaryr evi ew of hea r s ay d e te rm in a tio n s , P r i ce , 458 F. 3d at205, w e have hel d t hata tr i al cour t ’ s rul i ng on t he adm i ssi bil i t yof p ri or consi st ent s t at em ents i s r eview ed fo r abuse of d i scr et i on becau se “[t ] hi s i nher ent l yfac tual i nqui r ydoes nothave a s uffi ci entl egal component t o w arr ant pl enaryr evi ew . ” Fr az i er , 469 F. 3d at87. U n d e r R u le 8 0 1 (d )(1 )(B ), an o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n t is n o t h e a rsa yif it i s “cons i s t entw i t h t he dec l ar ant ’ s t es t i m onyand i s offe r ed t o r ebutan expr es s ori m pl i ed char ge aga i ns tt he dec l ar antof r ece ntfabr i cat i on ori m pr operi nfl uence orm ot i ve. ” I d. at 88. T he fol l ow i ng r equi r ement s m us tbe s at i s fi ed fora pr i orcons i s t ents t at ementt o be adm i t t ed int o ev i den ce: “(1) t he d ecl arantm ustt est i fyatt ri al and be subj ectt o crossexami nat i on; ( 2) t her e mustbe an e xpr es s ori m pl i ed cha r ge of r ece ntfabr i cat i on or im p rop er inf

luen ce o r m o ti v e o f th e d ec laran t’ s testi m o n y ; ( 3 ) th e p rop o n en t m u st of fe r a p ri o r co n sist en t st atem en t th at i s co n sist en t w ith the d ec laran t’ s ch all en g ed in-co u rt t es t i m ony ; and ( 4) t he pr i orcons i s t ents t at ementm us tbe made pr i ort o t he t i m e thatt he s uppos ed mot i ve t o fal s i fyar os e. ” Id .6

Fi s cus t es t i fi ed att r i al , hert es t i m onyw as gener al l ycons i s t entw i t h herw r i t t en s t at ement , and the def

ens e i m pugned hert es t i m onybys ugges t i ng t hatt he r ape a l l egat i ons w er e conc oct ed t o garners ym pathyfr om herhus band af t era fi ght . O nl yt he “pr e- m ot i ve r equi r ement ” i s ati s s ue her e. “[T] he pr emot i ve i nqui r yi s i nt err el at ed w i t h t he fabr i cat i on/ m ot i ve/ i nfl uence i nqui r y , and s houl d fort he mostpar tbe l eftt o t he s ound di s cr et i on of the di s t r i ctcour t . ” I d. at93. T he Supr eme C our ts quar el yaddr es s ed the pr e- m ot i ve r equi r ementi n Tom e v. U ni t ed Stat es , 513 U . S. 150 ( 1995) , s t at i ng: “Pr i orcons i s t ents t at ement s m aynotbe admi t t ed t o count eral l for m s of i m peac hm entort o bol s t ert he w i t nes s m er el ybeca us e s he has been di s cr edi t ed. ” Id . at157. T he ques t i on i s w hetheran out - of- cour ts t at ement r ebut s t he al l eged l i nk betw een the dec l ar ant ’ s purpor t ed mot i ve t o l i e and he rs ubs equent te s tim o n y . Id . T he pr e- m ot i ve r equi r ementexi s t s beca us e “[ a] cons i s t ents t at ementt hat predat es the m oti ve is a square rebut t al of the charge thatt he tes t i m on yw as contr i ved as a cons equenc e of thatm ot i ve . . . [but ] out - of- cour ts t at ement s t hatpos t dat e the al l eged fabr i cat i on . . . r efut e the cha r ged fa br i cat i on i n a l es s di r ectand for cef ul w ay . ” I

d. at 1 5 8 . T h is d istin c tio n is n e c e ss a ryb e c a u se “ [ i]f . . . R u le [ 8 0 1 (d )(1 )(B )] w e re to p e rm it t he i nt r oduct i on of pr i ors t at ement s as s ubs t ant i ve evi dence t o r ebuteveryi m pl i ci tchar ge t hata w i t nes s ’ i n- cour tt es t i m onyr es ul t s fr om r ece ntfabr i cat i on ori m pr operi nfl uence or m ot i ve, t he w hol e emphas i s of the tr i al coul d s hi ftt o t he out - of- cour ts t at ement s , nott he i n- cour tones . ” I

d. a t 1 6 5 . T

o me a c k n o w led g e d th a t “it m a yb e d if f icu lt t o a sc e rta in7

w h en a p arti cu lar fab ri ca ti o n , inf luen ce , o r m o ti v e a rose , ” b u t con clud ed that co u rt s are n e v e rt h e le s s c a p a b le o f m a k in g th e d e te rm in a tio n . I d. at165- 66. Fol l ow i ng T o me , we hel d i n Fr az i ert hat“[t ] he pr emot i ve r equi r ementw i l l be s at i s fi ed i f a di s t r i ctcour tcan re a so n a b lyd e ter m in e f

ro m th e re c o rd a ra n g e o f tim e w h e n a m o tiv e to f a b ric a te c o u ld have a r i s en af

t erthe pr i orcons i s t ents t at ement . ” 469 F. 3d at93- 94. I n t hi s cas e, t he tr i al j udge i ni t i al l yrul ed thatFi s cus ’ s w r i t t en s t at ementw as i nadmi s s i bl e. A ft era s i debarconfe r ence , he abrupt l yr ever s ed cour s e: I am goi ng t o r econs i derm yrul i ng. I bel i eve thi s i s a pr i ors t at ementt hat h a s b e e n o f

f e re d a s c o n sis ten t w ith th e tw o p rio r sta tem e n ts to re b u t an d to chal l enge the dec l ar antt o a r ece ntfabr i cat i on and mot i ve orone of the i dent i fi cat i on of the per s ons m ade a ft err ece i vi ng t hats t at ement , and the p e rso n sh e d e sc rib e d to th e d e f e n d a n t. A n d re g a rd les s to w h a t th e th e o ryis

. . . at le a st a s to h e r m o tiv e , y o u ’re a rg u in g th a t h e r m o tiv e f o r d o in g th is is t hats he compl ai ned t o herhus band, s o I ’ m goi ng t o al l ow i t . I w i l l al l ow th e sta tem e n t. A pp. 363- 64. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on aff i r m ed the tr i al j udge’ s rul i ng i n cur s or yfas hi on, c o n c l u d i n g t h a tF i s c u s ’ s wr i t t e n s t a t e me n twa s n o th e a r s a yu n d e rRu l e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 1 ) ( B) beca us e “M ui rur i ’ s ent i r e def ens e w as pr emi s ed on the theoryt hat[Fi s cus ] fabr i cat ed the r ape a nd l i ed t o t he pol i ce. ” A pp. 55- 56. T he tr i al j udge and the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on fai l ed t o addr es s t he det erm i nat i ve i s s ue: w hetherFi s cus ’ s purpor t ed mot i ve t o fal s i fyhert es t i m onyar os e bef or e oraft ers he g av e h er statem en t t o the p o li ce . O n ap p ea l, the G o v ern m en t cl aim s tha t “[t]he rec o rd does nots uppor tt he A ppel l ant ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he vi ct i m had a mot i ve t o acc us e hi m of8

r ape pr i ort o hers t at ementt o t he pol i ce t o gets ym pathyfr om herhus band orconce al an aff ai rw i t h t he A ppel l ant . ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at16. Y etM ui rur i ’ s defe ns e has al w ay s been t hatFi s cus w as m ot i vat ed bya fi ghtw i t h herhus band thatoccurr ed s hor t l ybefor e her e n c o u n t e rw i t h M u i ru r i , t h e d a y before h e r sta tem e n t to p o lice . T h is th e o ryh a s p lain s uppor ti n t he r ecor d; nei t hert he fa ctt hatFi s cus had a f i ghtw i t h herhus band nort he relati v e ti m ing o f th e f

igh t and h er e n co u n ter w ith M u iru ri are in d ispu te. T h u s, M u iru ri h a s a lle g e d a m o tiv e to f a b ri c a te a ri s in g b e f

o re F is c u s g a v e h e r s ta te m e n t to th e p o lic e . A c c o rd in g ly , F isc u s’s w ritten sta tem e n t co n stitu ted in a d m iss ib le h e a rsa yu n d e r R u le 801( d) ( 1) ( B ) and i t s admi s s i on cons t i tut ed an a bus e of di s cr et i on. B. W e n e x t co n sid e r th e tes tim o n yo f Jo h n H a w k in s, w h o o v e rh e a rd th e se c u rity guar d atFi s cus ’ s condomi ni um compl ex t el l M r . Fi s cus : “Y ourw i fe ha s been r aped. ” A pp. 682. T he tr i al j udge and the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on acc ept ed the G overnm ent ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he s ecur i t yguar d’ s out - of- cour ts t at ementw as notoffe r ed t o pr ove the trut h of the m at t eras s er t ed bec aus e i tw as offe r ed t o expl ai n w hyM r . Fi s cus s t opped s ear chi ng for h is w if e a n d w e n t to th e h o sp ital. W h e th e r h e a rsa ye v id e n c e is o f f e re d to p ro v e th e tru th of the mat t eras s er t ed i s “a que s t i on of l aw s ubj ectt o pl enaryr evi ew . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. Sal l i ns , 993 F. 2d 344, 346 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . I n Sal l i ns , w e not ed: W hethera di s put ed s t at ement i s hear s ayfr equent l ytur ns on t he purpos e for w hi ch i ti s offe r ed. I f the hea r s ayrul e i s t o have a nyfor ce, cour t s cannot9

acc eptw i t houts crut i nyan off er i ng par t y ’ s r epr es ent at i on t hatan out - ofcour ts t at ementi s bei ng i nt r oduced f ora mat er i al non- hear s aypurpos e. R ather , cour t s have a r es pons i bi l i t yt o as s es s i ndepende nt l yw hethert he os t ens i bl e non- hear s aypurpos e i s val i d. I d. I n t hi s cas e, t he G overnm ent ’ s j us t i fi cat i on i s not hi ng m or e than a thi nl yvei l ed p re tex t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t cla im s th a t th e o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n t w a s o f f e re d to e x p lain M r. F iscu s’s ac ti v it ies af ter his w ife’s e n co u n ter w ith M u iru ri , b u t th o se a cti v it ies are u tterlyirre lev a n t. T h e f a c t th a t M r. F isc u s w a s s e a rc h in g f o r h is w if

e a n d e v e n tu a lly found heratt he hos pi t al has no bear i ng on t he ques t i on w hethert he s exual encount er betw een M ui rur i and Fi s cus w as cons ens ual . T o t he ext entt hatt he w i t nes s ’ s t es t i m ony pr ovi ded cont extfort he j ur y , i t s m ar gi nal ut i l i t ycoul d have be en ac hi eved w i t houtt he h e a rsa ysta tem e n t — w h ich e x p re ss e d a th ird -h a n d o p in io n re g a rd in g th e u lti m a te is su e in th e c a se — th a t F isc u s h a d b e e n ra p e d . O n a p p e a l, th e G o v e rn m e n t m a k e s n o a ttem p t to exp l ai n h ow M r. F i scus’ s act i on s w ere r el evan t , or w hyt he h ears ayst at em ent w as so nece s s aryt o pr ovi de cont extt hati tw as noti nt ended t o pr ove the trut h of the mat t er as s er t ed. I n Sal l i ns , t he G overnm ents i m i l ar l yar gued thata r adi o conver s at i on betw een pol i ce of fi cer s w as offe r ed as cont extfort he off i cer ’ s act i ons , notfort he trut h of the a s s e rt io n th a t a s u s p e c t f ittin g th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s d e s c ri p tio n w a s in th e a re a . I d. We concl uded thatt he r adi o conver s at i on w as notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ovi de cont extbeca us e the i nfor m at i on w as of l i t t l e r el evanc e and, i n anyevent , coul d have be en pr ovi ded w i t hout10

th e p o te n tia lly p re

ju d ic ia l h e a rs a ys ta te m e n t. I d. M o re v e r, w e h e ld th a t ev e n if th e ra d io conver s at i on w er e admi s s i bl e t o pr ovi de cont ext , i tw as cl ear l ynotoffe r ed fort hat purpos e: “The abs ence of a t enabl e non- hear s aypurpos e foroffe r i ng t he cont ent s of the p o lice ra d io c a ll es tab lish e s th a t th e e v id e n c e c o u ld h a v e b e e n o f f e re d o n lyf

o r its tru th val ue. ” I

d. at347. A s i n Sal l i ns , w e ar e unabl e t o di s cern a t enabl e non- hear s aypurpos e fort he s ecur i t yguar d’ s s t at ementt hatFi s cus had bee n r aped. W e ther efor e conc l ude thatt he stat em en t w as o ff

ere d to p rov e the tru th o f th e m att er a sserted . In li g h t of the s tat em en t’ s o b v io u slyp re

ju d icia l ch a ra c ter , the trial c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in th is re g a rd a s w e ll. III . H a v in g c o n c lu d e d th a t tw o h e a rsa ysta tem e n ts w e re e rro n e o u slya d m itt e d in to evi dence , w e mustdet erm i ne w hethert hes e err or s w er e harm l es s . E r r oneous l yadmi t t ed e v id e n c e is h a rm les s if

“ it i s h ig h lyp ro b a b le th a t th e im p ro p e rlya d m itt e d e v id e n c e d id notcontr i but e t o t he j ur y ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on. ” Id . at348. B ut“i f one c annots ay

. . . tha t th e ju d g m e n t w a s n o t su b sta n tiallysw a y e d b yth e e rro r, itis im p o ss ib le to c o n c lu d e th a t s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts w e re n o t a f f e c te d ,” a n d re v e rs a l is re q u ir e d . U ni t ed Stat es v. Lopez , 340 F. 3d 169, 177 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng G over nm ent of the Vi r gi n I s l ands v. T o to , 5 2 9 F . 2 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 7 6 )). T he tr i al of thi s cas e hi nged al m os tent i r el yon confl i ct i ng ver s i ons of eve nt s gi ven b yM u i ru r i a n d F i s c u s . T h e j u r yc o n v i c t e d M u i ru r i o f u n l a wf u l s e x u a l c o n t a c ta n d t woI n l i ghtof ourhol di ng, w e nee d notaddr es s M ui rur i ’ s ar gum entt hatan 2 i nves t i gat or ’ s t es t i m onyr egar di ng hervi s i tt o t he al l eged c r i m e s cene cons t i tut ed 11 c o u n ts o f ra p e b u t ac q u itt e d h im o f tw o o th e r c o u n ts o f

ra p e . E x c lu d in g th e in a d m iss ib le h ea rsay , the o ther e v iden ce in the rec o rd w o u ld h av e su ff iced to su p p o rtthe ju ry ’s v erd ict . B u t “[t]he inq u iryca n n o t be m ere lyw h ethe r, n o tw ith stan d ing the e rror, there w as enough t o s uppor tt he convi ct i on. ” Lopez , 3 4 0 F .3 d a t 1 7 7 (q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). W her e evi dence i s , as i tw as i n t hi s cas e, l es s t han overw hel m i ng, “w e ca nnothel p but harbora gr ave doubtt hatt he err oneous admi s s i on of [he ar s ay ] s ubs t ant i al l yi nfl uence d t he j ur y ’ s ver di ct . ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. G r een , 5 5 6 F .3 d 1 5 1 , 1 5 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). See a l so Lopez , 340 F. 3d at177 ( r ever s al r equi r ed w hen the appe l l at e courti s “notconfi dentt hat t he i m pr oper l yadmi t t ed hea r s ays t at ement s di d nothel p t o ‘ cement ’ t he j ur y ’ s j udgm ent o f c o n v ict ion ”). G iv e n th e su b sta n tial w e ig h t th a t th e ju ryh a d to p lac e o n F isc u s’s tes tim o n yto convi ctM ui rur i , t he pot ent i al pr ej udi ce c aus ed byi nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ayr ei nfor ci ng her ver s i on of eve nt s w as gr eat . A w r i t t en r epor tbyt he al l eged vi ct i m and the conc l us i on of a s ecur i t yguar d t hatFi s cus had bee n r aped l i kel yt ai nt ed the j ur y ’ s deci s i onm aki ng p roc ess. T h ere fo re, w e c an n o t ho ld tha t th e tri al co u rt ’s ev iden ti aryruli n g s w ere harm l ess. IV. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e hol d t hatt he tr i al cour t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs cons t i tut ed r ever s i bl e err or , w hi ch r equi r ed vac aturof M ui rur i ’ s j udgm entof convi ct i on. 2re v e rsib le e rro r. W e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t sh o u ld th e G o v e rn m e n t su b jec t M u iru ri to anothert r i al , t he tr i al cour ts houl d ens ur e thatanyt es t i m onybyt he i nves t i gat ori s l i m i t ed t o herobs ervat i ons w i t houtr epea t i ng i nadmi s s i bl e hea r s ays t at ement s m ade t o herby Fi s cus dur i ng t hei rvi s i tt o t he al l eged c r i m e s cene . 12