N O T F O R P U B L I C A T IO N
U N I T E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
F O R T H E N I N T H C I R C U I T

U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A ,

P l a i n t i f f

- A p p e l l e e ,

v . J E S U S Q U I N O N E S

- C H A V E Z ,

D e f e n d a n t

- A p p e l l a n t

. N o . 1 3

- 5 0 5 5 5
D

. C

. N o . 8 : 1 2

- c r - 0 0 2 4 1

- J V S

- 1

M E M O R A N D U M *

A p p e a l f r o m t h e U n it e d S t a t e s D i st r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e C e n t r a l D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a J a m e s V

. S e l n a , D is t r i c t J u d g e , P r e s id in g A r g u e d a n d S u b m i t te d S e p t e m b e r 2 , 2 0 1 5

P a s a d e n a , C a li f

o r n i a B e f o r e : O ’ S C A N N L A I N , F I S H E R , a n d B Y B E E , C i r c u i t J u d g e s . J e s u s Q u in o n e s - C h a v e z a p p e a l s h i s j u r y c o n v ic t i o n s a n d s e n t e n c e f o r

c o n s p i r i n g t o b r in g a l ie n s i n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , 8 U

. S

. C

. § § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( v ) ( I ) , ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A ) ( i ) , ( a ) ( 1 ) ( B ) ( i ) , b r i n g i n g a l i e n s t o t h e U n it e d S t a te s f o r p r i v a t e f

i n a n c ia l 

# FIL ED

FEB 24 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* T h i s d i s p o s i t i o n i s n o t a p p r o p r i a t e f o r p u b li c a t io n a n d i s n o t p r e c e d e n t e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d b y N in t h C i r c u i t R u l e 3 6

- 3

.g a in , 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i i ) , a n d a i d i n g a n d a ss is t i n g a n a l i e n c o n v i c t e d o f

a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y t o e n t e r t h e U n i t e d S t a te s , 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 2 7

. I Q u i n o n e s a r g u e s t h a t h i s D u e P r o c e s s a n d C o n f r o n t a t io n C la u s e r i g h t s

w e r e v i o l a t e d b y t h e e x c l u si o n o f a s e l f

- e x c u lp a t o r y st a t e m e n t h e c l a i m s t o h a v e

m a d e d u r i n g h i s p o s t

- a r r e s t in t e r v i e w . B u t u n l i k e th e i n t e r v i e w i n g o f f i c e r ’ s
t e s t i m o n y a b o u t Q u i n o n e s ’ a d m i s s i o n , t h a t p u r p o r t e d s t a t e m e n t w a s i n a d m i s s i b l e h e a r s a y . S e e F e d

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( A ) ; U n i te d S ta t e s v
. O r t e

g a , 2 0 3 F

. 3 d 6 7 5 , 6 8 2 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. D u e P r o c e s s f o r b i d s t h e g o v e r n m e n t f

r o m k n o w i n g l y i n t r o d u c i n g f

a l s e e v i d e n c e . S e e N

a p u e v
. I l l i n o i s , 3 6 0 U

. S

. 2 6 4 , 2 6 9 ( 1 9 5 9 )

. I t d o e s n o t , h o w e v e r , m a n d a te t h a t a c o u r t a ll o w a d e f e n d a n t t o p l a c e h i s i n a d m is s i b l e s ta t e m e n t s “ b e f o r e t h e ju r y w i t h o u t s u b

j e c t i n g [ h i m se l f

] t o c r o s s e x a m i n a t i o n . ” U

n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F

e r n a n d e z , 8 3 9 F

. 2 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 0 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 8 )

2( p e r c u r i a m )

. I f Q u in o n e s w i s h e d t o c o m m u n i c a t e h is v e r si o n o f e v e n t s , h e c o u l d

h a v e t e s t i f

i e d

. 1
L ik e w i s e , Q u i n o n e s ’ C o n f r o n t a t io n C la u s e r i g h t s w e r e n o t v i o l a t e d b y l i m i t i n g h i s c r o s s - e x a m in a t i o n o f t h e o f f i c e r t o a d m i s s ib l e t e s ti m o n y . D e f e n s e

c o u n s e l e x t e n s i v e l y c r o ss - e x a m i n e d t h e o f f i c e r a b o u t h i s m o t i v a t i o n s f o r

a r r e s t i n g a n d s u b s e q u e n t ly M i r a n d i z i n g Q u i n o n e s . S u c h q u e st io n i n g w a s

a d e q u a te t o a l lo w t h e j u r y to “ a p p r o p r i a te l y d r a w i n f e r e n c e s r e l a ti n g t o t h e

1 In his c onc urre nc e , Judge Fishe r a gre e s with our ultim a te c onc l usion, but insists tha t Quinone s’ c la i m

should be a na ly z e d unde r the “ c om m o n la w rule of c om ple t e ne ss.” W e de c line to a ddre ss this issue , whic h wa s wa ive d. Se e C ruz v
. Int’l C olle c tion C

orp. , 673 F.3d 991, 998 (9th C ir. 2012) (e x pla ining tha t a n a ppe lla te c o urt re v ie ws “ only

issue s whic h a

re a rgue d spe c ific a lly

a nd distinc tly

in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f” (c ita

tion om itte d)). M ore ove r, le a ving a side the fa c t tha t this C ourt ha s ne ve r he ld tha t the rule of c om

ple te ne ss a

pplie s to ora l sta

te m e nts, se e O rte ga , 203 F.3d a

t 682, the re c ord he re c le a rly indic a te s tha

t the distric t c ourt

“ c a re fully a nd thoroughly

c onside re d the gove rnm e nt’ s proffe re d sta te m e nts from the p ost-a rre st inte rvie w a

nd c orre c tly

de te rm ine d tha

t those sta te m e nts we re ne ithe r m isle a ding nor ta

ke n out of c onte xt,” Unite d State s v . Lie r a-Morale

s , 759 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th C ir. 2014). The c o urt e nga ge d in a n e xte nde d c olloquy

with de fe nse c ounse l c onc e rning Quinone s’ ve rsion of his post-a rre st inte rvie w, a

nd e ve n pe rm i tte d de fe nse c ounse l to e lic it a y e s or no a

nswe r from

Age nt R odrigue z a s to whe the r Quinone s sa i d m ore tha n just tha t he wa s the drive r of the boa t. W e fa il to se e how the distric t c o urt’ s ruling in this re ga rd c ould possibly

be c onstrue d a s a n a buse of disc re t ion. Se e Unite d State s v . C ollic o tt , 92 F.3d 973, 983 (9th C ir. 1996). 3r e l i a b i l it y o f t h e w i t n e s s . ” S l o v i k v
. Y a t e s , 5 5 6 F

. 3 d 7 4 7 , 7 5 2 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( c i t a t io n o m i t t e d )

. I I Q u i n o n e s n e x t a r g u e s t h a t t h e o f f ic e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y t h a t “ m u l t i p l e w i t n e s s e s ”
i d e n t i f i e d Q u i n o n e s a s t h e d r i v e r o f t h e s m u g g l i n g b o a t v i o l a t e d t h e C o n f r o n t a t i o n C l a u s e b e c a u se o n l y s o m e o f t h e s e w i t n e ss e s t e s t i f i e d

. B u t t h a t
t e s t i m o n y e m e r g e d o n ly a f te r d e f e n se c o u n se l o p e n e d th e d o o r b y e l i c i t in g
t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g t h e s e w i t n e s s e s . S e e U n i te d S ta t e s v
. R e

y e s- A l v a r a d o , 9 6 3
F .2 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 7 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) ( “ [ A ] p p e l la n t s m a y n o t s e e k r e v e r s a l o n t h e b a s i s

o f t h e i r o w n e v i d e n t i a r y e r r o r s . ” ( c i t a t i o n o m i t te d ) ) ; B u r g e s s v
. P r e m ie r C o r

p
. , 7 2 7 F

. 2 d 8 2 6 , 8 3 4 ( 9 t h C ir

. 1 9 8 4 )

. E v e n m o r e i m p o r t a n t ly , t h e o f f i c e r ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s i n t r o d u c e d f o r t h e n o n h e a r s a y p u r p o s e o f

e x p l a i n in g t h e o f

f i c e r ’ s m o t i v a t i o n t o M i r a n d i z e Q u in o n e s . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. C

ru z - D i a z , 5 5 0 F

. 3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 6

- 7 7 ( 1 s t C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) ; s e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. J

i m i n e z , 5 6 4 F

. 3 d 1 2 8 0 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2 0 0 9 )

. F u r th e r , t h e tr i a l j u d g e ’ s l i m i t i n g i n st r u c ti o n

— a l t h o u g h i m p e r f e c t

— w a s s u f

f i c ie n t t o c u r e a n y
p o ss i b l y p r e ju d i c i a l e f

f e c t a n d w a s n o t p l a i n e r r o r .

I I I 4T h e t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r ly e x c l u d e d e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n in g t w o a b s e n t

w i t n e s s e s . Q u i n o n e s c l a i m s t h a t o n e w i tn e s s ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h a t Q u i n o n e s w a s “ o n
t o p g e t t i n g f

u e l ” sh o u l d h a v e b e e n a d m it t e d u n d e r R u l e 8 0 3 ( 3 ) b e c a u s e th e

w i t n e s s a l s o s a i d h e w o u l d n o t i d e n t i f y t h e d r i v e r o u t o f f

e a r . B u t R u l e 8 0 3 ( 3 ) b y i t s v e r y t e r m s f

o r b i d s t h i s k i n d o f m a n e u v e r . S e e F e d

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 3 ( 3 ) ( d e c l a r i n g

“ a s t a t e m e n t o f m e m o r y o r b e l i e f t o p r o v e t h e f a c t r e m e m b e r e d o r b e l i e v e d ”
i n a d m is s i b l e u n d e r t h e r u l e ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v
. E m m e rt , 8 2 9 F

. 2 d 8 0 5 , 8 1 0 ( 9 t h
C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ) ( “ I f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n i n t h e t e x t o f t h e r u l e i s t o h a v e a n y e f f e c t , i t m u st b e u n d e r s t o o d t o n a r r o w l y l i m i t t h o s e a d m i s s ib l e s t a t e m e n t s t o d e c l a r a t i o n s o f

c o n d i t i o n

— ‘ I ’ m s c a r e d ’

— a n d n o t b e l i e f

— ‘ I ’ m s c a r e d b e c a u s e G a l k i n t h r e a t e n e d

m e . ’ ” ) ( c i t a t i o n a n d e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d )

. L ik e w i s e , t h e t r ia l j u d g e c o r r e c t l y r u l e d t h a t e v i d e n c e o f a s e c o n d a b s e n t

w i t n e s s ’ s c r i m i n a l c o n v ic t io n w a s i n a d m i s si b l e . B e c a u s e t h e a g e n t ’ s r e f e r e n c e t o

“ m u l t i p l e w i t n e ss e s ” w a s n o t h e a r s a y , t h a t w i t n e s s ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y w a s si m p l y n o t a t i s su e . S e e F e d

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 6 ( l i m i t i n g a t t a c k s o n a d e c l a r a n t ’ s c r e d i b il i ty t o i n s t a n c e s i n w h i c h h e a r s a y h a s b e e n a d m i t t e d )

. I V

5Q u i n o n e s ’ c o n v i c t i o n u n d e r 8 U

. S .C

. § 1 3 2 7 w a s v a l id

. S e c t i o n 1 3 2 7

m a k e s i t a c r i m e to “ k n o w in g l y a i d [ ] o r a s s i s t [ ] ” a n i n a d m is si b l e a l i e n t o e n t e r
t h e U n i t e d S t a te s w h e r e t h a t a l i e n h a s b e e n c o n v i c te d o f a n a g g r a v a te d f

e l o n y
t h a t a l s o q u a l i f

i e s a s a c r im e o f m o r a l t u r p i t u d e u n d e r 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 8 2 ( a ) ( 2 )

. F o r p u r p o s e s o f

§ 1 3 2 7 , t h e t e r m “ a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y ” i n c l u d e s “ a n o f

f e n s e

r e l a t i n g to

. . . c o u n t e r f

e i t i n g [ o r ] f

o r g e r y . ” 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( R )

. O n e

a l i e n Q u i n o n e s t r a n s p o r t e d h a d b e e n c o n v i c t e d o f “ m a n u f a c t u r [ i n g ] , d i s t r i b u t [ i n g ] , o r se l l [ i n g ] f a l s e d o c u m e n ts t o c o n c e a l t h e t r u e c i t iz e n s h i p o r

r e s i d e n t a l i e n s t a tu s o f a n o t h e r p e r so n ” i n v i o l a t i o n o f C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l C o d e § 1 1 3

. Q u i n o n e s c o n t e n d s t h a t t h i s c r i m e q u a l i f i e s a s n e i t h e r a n a g g r a v a t e d
f e l o n y n o r a c r i m e o f m o r a l t u r p i t u d e u n d e r § 1 3 2 7

. H e a l s o a r g u e s t h a t r e c e n t S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t r e q u i r e s t h e g o v e r n m e n t to p r o v e Q u i n o n e s k n e w t h e

n a tu r e o f t h e a l i e n ’ s c r i m e s . W e d i sa g r e e . S e c t i o n 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( R ) o f f e r s a b r o a d d e f

i n i t i o n o f a n a g g r a v a te d f e l o n y . S e e R o d r i g u e z - V a l e n c i a v
. H

o l d e r , 6 5 2 F

. 3 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 1 5 9 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 1 1 ) ( p e r

c u r i a m ) ( “ [ W ] h e n C o n g r e s s a d d e d c o n v ic t i o n s r e la t i n g t o c o u n t e r f e i t i n g t o t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y , it w a s w e ll u n d e r s t o o d

. . . t h a t t h e g e n e r i c c r i m e

o f c o u n t e r f

e i ti n g e x t e n d e d f

a r b e y o n d t h e i m i t a ti o n o f c u r r e n c y . ” ) ; A l b i l l o 6F ig u e r o a v
. I N S , 2 2 1 F

. 3 d 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 3 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( n o t in g t h a t t h e ‘ r e l a t i n g
t o ’ l a n g u a g e i n § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( R ) c o v e r s “ a r a n g e o f a c t i v i t i e s b e y o n d t h o s e o f

c o u n t e r f e i t i n g o r f

o r g e r y i t s e l f

” )

. Q u i n o n e s n o n e t h e l e s s a r g u e s t h a t § 1 1 3 d o e s

n o t q u a l i f y b e c a u se it la c k s a n e x p l i c i t “ i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d ” e l e m e n t t h a t t h i s C o u r t h a s so m e t i m e s r e q u ir e d

. S e e M o r a l e s - A l e g ri a v
. G o n za l e s , 4 4 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 ( 9 t h C i r . 2 0 0 6 )

. B u t t h e C a li f o r n i a S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s o b s e r v e d th a t t h e

e l e m e n t s o f § 1 1 3 a r e : “ ( 1 ) t h e m a n u f a c t u r e , d i st r i b u ti o n o r s a l e o f f a l s e d o c u m e n t s ; a n d ( 2 ) t h e i n t e n t t o c o n c e a l t h e t r u e c i t i z e n s h i p o r r e s i d e n t a li e n

s t a t u s o f a n o t h e r p e r s o n . ” P e o

p l e v
. R iz o , 9 9 6 P

. 2 d 2 7 , 3 0 ( C a l

. 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o t a t i o n

m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. M o r e o v e r , i n R o d r i g e z - V a l e n c i a , o u r C o u r t h e l d t h a t a n

u n d e r l y i n g c r i m i n a l s t a t u t e m a y c o n s t i t u t e a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n y u n d e r § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 4 3 ) ( R ) w h e r e t h e u n d e r l y i n g o f f e n s e d o e s n o t e x p l i c it l y r e q u i r e a n i n t e n t t o d e f

r a u d b u t i s b y i t s n a t u r e “ a n in h e r e n t l y f r a u d u le n t c r i m e . ” R o d

r i g u e z V a l e n c ia , 6 5 2 F

. 3 d a t 1 1 6 0 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. B e c a u s e a n y c r i m e c o m m i t t e d

7u n d e r § 1 1 3 r e q u i r e s a n i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d , t h e r e i s l i t t l e d o u b t th a t § 1 1 3 i s a n

“ i n h e r e n tl y f

r a u d u l e n t c r i m e ” a n d t h u s q u a l i f ie s a s a n a g g r a v a t e d f

e l o n y . 2 Q u i n o n e s ’ a r g u m e n t t h a t § 1 1 3 d o e s n o t q u a l i f y a s a c r i m e o f m o r a l
t u r p i t u d e i s si m i l a r ly u n c o n v i n c i n g . “ A c r i m e h a v i n g a s a n e l e m e n t t h e i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d c l e a r l y i s o n e i n v o l v i n g m o r a l t u r p i t u d e ,” a n d m a y b e a s c e r t a i n e d b y “ t h e

s t a t u t o r y d e f

i n i t i o n o r b y t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c r i m e . ” M c N a u g h to n v
. I

N S , 6 1 2 F

. 2 d 4 5 7 , 4 5 9 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) ( p e r c u r i a m )

. T h e c r i m e p r o h i b i t e d i n § 1 1 3 i s o n e t h a t b y n a t u r e i n v o l v e s b o t h a n i n te n t t o p r o d u c e c o u n t e r f e i t d o c u m e n t s a n d t h e i n t e n t
t o c o n c e a l t h e i m m i g r a t i o n s t a t u s o f o t h e r s w r o n g f u l ly

. S e e R iz o , 9 9 6 P

. 2 d a t 3 0

. B e c a u se t h e in t e n t t o d e f r a u d i s i n s e p a r a b l e f

r o m t h e a c t s e n c o m p a s s e d b y § 1 1 3 , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r i g h t ly d e t e r m i n e d t h a t § 1 1 3 i s a c r i m e o f m o r a l tu r p i t u d e .

2 Q u i n o n e s a t te m p t s t o a v o i d t h i s c o n c l u s i o n b y d i s t i n g u is h i n g t h e “ i n t e n t t o d e f r a u d ” a n d t h e “ i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e . ” B u t t h a t a r g u m e n t p r o v e s to o m u c h

. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t h a s o b se r v e d th a t t h e t e r m d e f r a u d m e a n s “ t o d e p r i v e o f so m e r i g h t , i n te r e s t , o r p r o p e r ty b y d e c e i t

. ” S e e U n it e d S t a t e s v
. Y

e r m ia n , 4 6 8 U

. S

. 6 3 , 7 3 n . 1 2 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ( c it a ti o n a n d i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n m a r k s o m i t t e d )

. T h e m a n u f a c t u r e , d i s t r i b u t i o n , o r s a le o f f

a l s e d o c u m e n t s u n d e n ia b ly d e p r i v e s t h e g o v e r n m e n t o f i t s e x c l u s i v e l e g a l r i g h t t o i s su e v a l i d i d e n t i f i c a t io n , a n d d e p r i v e s t h o s e r e c e i v i n g s u c h d o c u m e n t s o f

t h e i r v a l i d l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n c o n f i r m i n g t h e c o n v e y e r ’ s t r u e c i t i z e n s h i p s t a t u s . S

e e , e
. g
. , 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 0 2 8 ( c r i m i n a l i z i n g v a r i o u s u s e s o f

“ f a ls e i d e n t i f

i c a t i o n d o c u m e n t[ s ] , ” a n d d e f i n i n g s u c h d o c u m e n ts a s “ n o t is s u e d b y o r u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f a g o v e r n m e n ta l e n ti t y ” b u t a p p e a r i n g to b e so i s su e d )

. 8F in a l l y , c o n t r a r y to Q u in o n e s ’ a s s e r t i o n , r e c e n t S u p r e m e C o u r t p r e c e d e n t

i s c o n s i s te n t w i t h o u r C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g t h a t § 1 3 2 7 d o e s n o t r e q u i r e t h e
g o v e r n m e n t t o p r o v e a d e f e n d a n t k n e w w h

y t h e a l i e n h e w a s t r a n sp o r t i n g w a s i n a d m is s i b l e . S e e U

n i t e d S t a t e s v
. F

l o r e s - G a r c i a , 1 9 8 F

. 3 d 1 1 1 9 ( 9 t h C ir

. 2 0 0 0 )

. I n F l o r e s- F i g u e r o a v
. U

n it e d S t a t e s , 5 5 6 U

. S

. 6 4 6 ( 2 0 0 9 ) , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t

e x p l i c it l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t “ c o n t e x t ” m a y s u g g e st t h a t a m e n s r e a t e r m d o e s n o t

a p p l y t o a l l e l e m e n t s i n a c r i m e , i d

. a t 6 5 2 , a n d o n e J u s t ic e s p e c i f i c a l l y c i t e d § 1 3 2 7 a s a n e x a m p l e , i d

. a t 6 6 0 ( A l i t o , J ., c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t a n d c o n c u r r i n g i n
t h e ju d g m e n t )

. Q u in o n e s ’ c o n v i c ti o n u n d e r § 1 3 2 7 w a s v a l i d , a n d h i s s e n t e n c e

w a s n o t u n r e a so n a b l e . A F F I R M E D .

9Unite d

State s v . Quinone

s-C hav e z , No. 1 3

- 5 0 5 5 5 FISHER , C irc uit Judge , c onc urring in pa rt, disse n ting in pa

rt a nd c onc urring in the judgm e nt: I join in the

judgm e nt a

nd in the re a soning of the m a jority with the e x c e ption of the disc ussion in pa

rt I. I would hold the

distric t c ourt e rre d by

fa iling to

re c o gniz e its disc re tion unde r the rule of c om ple t e ne s s to pe rm it the de fe n se to

c ross e xa m ine the gove rnm e nt’ s witne ss re ga rding Quinone s’ posta

rre st sta te m e nt. B e c a use the e rror wa s ha

rm le ss, howe ve r, I c onc ur in the re s ult. Age nt R odrigue z te stifie d Quinone s a dm itte d to driving the sm uggling boa

t. This te stim ony

wa s im porta nt to the prose c ution be c a use it sugge ste d Quinone s ha d c onfe sse d to bringing a lie ns into the

Unite d Sta te s a

nd c ontra dic te d his de fe nse tha t he wa s a m e re pa sse nge r. Quinone s m a inta ins he a c tua lly told R odrigue z he drove the boa t only w hile the c aptain w as urinating and fix ing the e ngine , e vide nc e tha t would support his de fe nse tha t he wa s not pa

rt of the sm

uggling ope ra tion. He

c onte nds the gove rnm e nt “ slic e d a nd dic e d” his words into a c onfe ssion by

e lic iting te s tim ony

sole ly a bout the inc rim ina t ing portion of his sta te m e n t while

om i tting te s tim ony

a bout the e xc ulpa

t ory portion. The distric t c ourt re fuse d to

a llow Quinone s to c ross e x a m ine R odrigue z a bout the e xc ulpa

tory pa rt of the
sta te m e nt, c onc luding “ [t] h e rule of c om ple t e ne s s . . . doe s not a

pply be c a use the 

# FIL ED

FEB 24 2016
M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

1sta

te m e nts we re m a de ora lly ” ra the r tha n in writing. In the

a lte rna tive , the c ourt rule d tha t, e ve n if the rule of c om

ple te ne s s a

pplie d to unre c orde d ora l sta te m e nts, the c ourt would be c om

pe l le d to e xc lude the te s tim ony Quinone s sought to e lic it from R odrigue z a s ina dm issible he a rsa y , c iting U nite d State

s v . Orte ga , 203 F.3d 675, 682 (9th C ir. 2000). The c ourt a d vise d Quinone s tha

t if he wishe d to c onte st the g ove rnm e nt’ s portra

y a l of his role on the boa t, he would ha v e to wa ive his Fifth Am e ndm e nt privile ge a nd te stify him se lf. I would hold the

distric t c ourt m isa

pplie d the rule of c om

ple te ne ss. Although the rule of c om ple te ne ss a s pa

rtia lly c odifie d in R ule 106 of the Fe de ra l R ule s of Evide nc e is lim ite d to writte n a nd re c orde d sta

te m e nts, the c om

m on la w rule of c om

ple te ne ss c ontinue s to c a rry we ight, a n d it a p p lie s broa dly not only

to writte n a nd re c orde d sta

te m e nts but a l so to unre c orde d ora l sta te m e nts. The

c om m on la w rule of c om

ple te ne ss, m ore ove r, trum ps the he a rsa y

rule . Thus, the distric t c o urt ha d disc re tion to pe rm it Quinone s to c ross e xa m i ne R odrigue z

re ga rding his c om

ple t e posta

rre st sta te m e n t. The c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion by ruling othe rwise

. A. T he Com m on L aw Rule of Com ple te ne ss Applie s to Unr e c or de d O r al State m e nts The distric t c ourt prope rly re c ogniz e d the rule of c om ple t e ne ss c odifie d by

2R

ule 106 a pplie s sole ly

to writte n a

nd re c orde d

sta te m e nts, not to unre c orde d ora l
sta te m e nts. Unde r R

u l e 106, whe n “ a

pa rty introduc e s a ll or pa

rt of a writing or

re c o rde d sta

te m e nt, a n a dve rse pa

rty m a y re quire the introduc tion, a t tha t tim e , of

a ny othe r pa rt . . . tha

t in fa irne ss ought to be

c onside re d a t the sa

m e tim e .” Fe d. R

. Evid. 106. “ For pra c t ic a l re a s ons, [R ule 106] is lim ite d to writings a nd re c orde d
sta te m e nts a nd doe s not a

pply to c onve rsa tions.” Fe d. R . Evid. 106 a dvisory

c om m itte e ’ s note

. R ule 106, howe ve r, is not the fina l word on the rule of c om ple te ne ss. Unde r the c om m on la w, the rule of c om

ple te n e s s “ c ove r[s] not only writings ta

k e n out of

c onte xt, but a lso . . . the trunc a te d use of a c ts, de c la ra tions, a nd c o nve rsa tions.” 21A Ke nne th W . Gra ha m , Jr., Fe de ral Prac tic e and Proc e dure § 5072 (2d e d. 2015). As both this c ourt a nd the Supre m e C ourt ha

ve re c ogniz e d, the c om

m on la w rule of c om

ple te ne ss c ontinue s to ope ra te inde pe nde ntly notwithsta

n ding its
pa rtia l c odific a tion in R

ule 106. Se e Be e c h Airc raft C o rp. v . Raine

y , 488 U.S. 153, 171-72 (1988) (a

pply ing the c o m

m on la w rule of c om

ple t e ne ss e ve n a fte r it wa s

“ pa rtia lly c odifie d” in R

ule 106); Unite d State

s v . C ollic ott , 92 F.3d 973, 983 n.12 (9th C ir. 1996) (re c ogniz ing R ule 611(a ) “ gra nts distric t c o urts the sa m e a

uthority

re ga rding ora l sta

te m e nts whic h [R

ule ] 106 gra

nts re ga rding writte n

a nd re c orde d
sta te m e nts” (a lte ra tion in origina l) (quoting Unite d State

s v
. Li , 55 F.3d 325, 329
3(7th C ir. 1995))); c f. Unite d State

s v . Lie ra-Morale

s , 759 F.3d 1105, 1111 (9th C ir. 2014) (c iting C

ollic ott , 92 F.3d a

t 983 & n.12 a

nd a ssum i ng without de c iding the

c om m on la w rule of c om

ple te ne ss a

pplie s to ora l sta

te m e nts). 1 Distric t c o urts’ a uthority to a pply the c om m on la w rule is re e nforc e d by R ule 611, whic h sta

te s “ [t] he c ourt should e xe rc i se re a sona ble c ontrol ove r the

m ode a nd orde r of e xa m ining witne sse s a nd pre se nting e v ide nc e so a s to . . . m a ke those proc e dure s e ffe c tive for de te rm ining the truth,” Fe d. R . Evid. 611(a ), a nd

“ re sta te s in broa d te rm s the powe r a nd obliga tion of the judge a s de ve l ope d unde r

c om m on la w princ iple s ,” Fe d. R . Evid. 611 a dvisory c o m m itte e ’ s note . In

a pply ing this rule , distric t c ourts should “ e xe rc i se c om m on se n se a nd a

se nse of

1 In B e e c h Airc raft , the gove rnm e nt que s tione d a witne ss a bout whe the r he m a de c e rta i n sta

te m e nts in a

le tte r, the n use d e vide ntia ry obje c tions to pre v e nt the opposing pa

rty from c ross e xa m ining the witne ss a b out othe r pa rts of the le t te r to show its ove ra l l m e a ning diffe re d from the m isle a ding im

p re ssion give n

by the gove rnm e nt’ s se le c t ive pre se nta tion. Although “ m u c h of the c ontrove rsy ” in the c a se “ c e n te re d on whe the r R ule 106 a pplie s,” the Supre m e C ourt found it

“ unne c e ssa

ry to a ddre ss tha

t issue ” be c a

use unde r the c om

m on la w rule of c om ple t e ne ss, it wa s “ obvious[] tha t whe n one pa

rty ha s m a de use of a

portion of a doc um e nt, suc h tha

t m isunde rsta

nding or distortion c a n be a ve rte d only through pre s e nta tion of a

nothe r portion, the m a te ria l re quire d for c om ple te n e ss is . . . a dm issible .” Be e c h Airc raft , 488 U.S. a t 172. Be e c h Airc r aft ’ s e m bra c e of the c om m on la w c om p l e te ne ss doc trine without de te rm ining whe the r R ule 106 a pplie d de m onstra

te s the c om

m on la w rule survive s inde pe n de ntly of R ule 106. S

e e 21A Gra ha m , supra , § 5073 n.1 (“ In Be e c h Airc raft C orp. v
. Raine

y , the Supre m e C ourt he ld tha t a doption of R

ule 106 did not re

pe a l the c om

m on la w c o m ple te ne ss doc trine ; he nc e , tha

t d o c trine c a

n be invoke d for c om

ple te ne ss whe re R

ule 106 doe s not a pply .” (c ita

tion om i tte d)). 4fa irne s s” a nd “ re quire [] a pa rty offe ring te s tim ony

a s to a n [ora l] utte ra

nc e to
pre s e nt fa irly

the ‘ substa

nc e or e ffe c t’ a nd c o nte xt of the sta te m e nt” suc h tha

t “ the
te stim ony . . . ‘ a t le a st re pre se nt[s] the te nor of the utte ra nc e a s a whole , a n d not

m e re fra gm e nts of it.’ ” Unite d State s v
. C astro , 813 F.2d 571, 576 (2d C ir. 1987) (quoting 7 J. W igm ore , Ev ide nc e § 2099 (C ha dbourn re v . 1978)). A distric t c o urt a

buse s its disc re tion unde r R ule 106 whe n it e xc lude s pa rt of

a sta te m e nt if “ the e dite d ve rsion . . . ‘ distorts the m e a ning of the sta

te m e nt or

e xc lude s inform a tion substa ntia lly e xc ulpa t ory of the de c la

ra nt.’ ” Unite d State

s v
. Dorre ll , 758 F.2d 427, 434-35 (9th C i r. 1985) (quoting Unite d State s v . K aminsk i , 692 F.2d 505, 522 (8th C ir. 1982)). The sa m e sta nda rd should a

pply to ora l
sta te m e nts unde r the c om

m on la w rule of c om

p le t e ne ss ope ra ting through R ule 611(a ). Thus, if the

pa rtia l sta t e m e nt e lic ite d from

R o drigue z on dire c t

e xa m ina tion wa s m isle a ding unde r the D orre ll sta nda rd, Quinone s should ha

ve be e n pe rm i tte d to e lic it the c om ple te sta te m e n t on c ross e xa m ina tion of R odrigue z . B . T he Com m on L aw Rule of Com ple te ne ss Should B e Constr ue d to T r um p the H e ar say Rule In m y vie w, the distric t c ourt a lso e rre d in ruling it wa s c o m pe lle d to e xc lude the re m a inde r of Quinone s’ sta te m e n t unde r the he a rsa y rule . To be sure , the distric t c o urt wa s c o rre c t tha t the he a rsa y

rule wa s im

plic a t e d he re . The

5gove rnm e nt wa s fre e to e lic it te stim ony from R o drigue z a

bout Quinone s’ posta rre s t sta te m e nt be c a

use Quinone s a n d the gove rnm e nt we re pa rty oppone nts. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 801(d)(2). B ut we re Quinone s to e lic it te stim ony from R odrigue z a

bout the re m a inde r of the sa m e posta rre st sta te m e n t , the sta

te m e nt would be he a rsa y be c a

use Quinone s would be offe ring his own out-of-c ourt
sta te m e nt ra the r tha

n the sta te m e nt of a

n opposing pa

rty

. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 801(c ), 802. W ise c ourts a

nd c om m e nta tors, howe ve r, ha ve c onc lude d the rule of

c om ple t e ne ss should ove rride , or “ trum p,” the he a rsa y

rule in this spe c ific c onte xt. Se e , e .g. , 21A Gra

ha m , s upra , § 5072 (“ [T] he c om m on la w doc trine c a rrie s with it wha t Profe ssor Na

nc e c a lls ‘ the trum

ping func t ion’ ; tha

t is, e vide nc e tha t fa lls within thec om

ple te ne ss doc trine is [a dm issible 2 ] e ve n though it would othe

rwise be ina dm issible unde r som e othe r rule of e vide n c e . Thus, the oppone nt c a n introduc e wha t

would othe rwise be he a rsa y to c om p le te a trunc a te d sta

te m e nt offe re d by

the propone n t.” (footnote s om itte d)); Ste phe n A. Sa ltz burg e t a l., Fe de ral Rule

s of Ev ide nc e Manual

§ 106.02 (11th e d . 2015) (“ A pa rty should not

2 Although this word a

p pe a rs a s “ ina d

m issible ” in the origina l te xt, this is c le a rly a ty pogra phic a l e rror in c onte xt a

n d in light of the

c ita tion to Profe ssor Na nc e ’ s la

w re vie w a

rtic le

. Se e Da le A. Na

nc e , A The ory

of Ve rbal C

omple te ne

ss , 80 Iowa L. R e v. 825, 839 (1995). 6be a

b le to a dm i t a

n inc om ple te sta te m e nt tha

t give s a n unfa ir im

pre ssion, a

nd the n obje c t on he a

rsa y grounds to c om

ple ting sta

te m e nts tha

t would re c tify

the unfa irne ss. The a

ppropria te wa y to re solve the he a rsa y

issue is to hold tha

t the
pa rty who offe rs a

n inc om ple te sta te m e nt or doc um e nt forfe i ts a ny he a rsa y obje c tion to c om

ple ting e v ide nc e tha

t is ne c e ssa

ry to c orre c t a

m i sle a ding im pre ssion.” ); Da le A. Na

nc e , Ve rbal C

omple te ne

ss and Ex c lusionary

Rule s Unde r the F e d e r al Rule s of Ev ide nc e , 75 Te x . L. R e v. 51, 54 (1996) (“ If a propone nt ha s

e vide nc e of the oppone nt’ s a dm ission, the propone n t m a y

we ll be te m

pte d to introduc e the pa

rt of tha t a dm ission tha

t is m ost da

m a g i ng to the oppone nt, se c ure in the knowle dge tha

t the oppone nt c a nnot re spond. The c om p le te n e s s doc trine vitia te s this m a ne u v e r by

a ssuring the introduc tion of a ll pa rts of the a dm ission tha

t

a re d e m a nde d by

the oppone nt a

nd tha t a ffe c t the infe re nc e s tha t m a y le gitim a te ly be dra wn from

the pa rt of the utte ra nc e the propone n t ha s c hose n to introduc e . Thus, the c om

ple te n e ss doc trine se rve s a trumping func tion in tha t it trum ps

e xc lusiona

ry rule s tha t would othe rwise pre ve n t the oppone nt’ s re sponse . ” ); Unite d State s v . Buc c i , 525 F.3d 116, 133 (1st C ir. 2008) (“ [O] ur c a se la w una m biguously

e sta blishe s tha

t the rule of c om

ple te ne ss m a y

be invoke d to fa c ilita

t e the introduc tion of othe rwise ina dm issible e v ide nc e .” ); U nite d State

s v . Sutton , 801 F.2d 1346, 1368 (D.C . C ir. 1986) (“ R ule 106 c a n a de qua te ly

fulfill its func tion
7only

by pe rm i tting the a d

m ission of som e othe rwise ina dm issible e vide nc e whe n the c ourt finds in fa irne ss tha t the proffe re d

e vide n c e should be c o n side re d

c onte m p ora ne ously . A c ontra

ry c onstruc tion ra ise s the spe c te r of distorte d a nd

m isle a ding tria ls, a

nd c re a te s diffic ultie s for both litiga nts a nd the tria l c ourt.” ); Unite d State s v . C astro-C a bre ra , 534 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1160-61 & n.6 (C .D. C a l. 2008) (“ [T] he R

ule of C om

ple te ne ss wa s de signe d to pre ve nt the Gove rnm e nt from offe ring a

‘ m isle a dingly -ta ilore d snippe t.’ . . . . Although the R ule of C om ple te ne ss c a

nnot se rve a s a

n e nd run a

round the prohibition on ina dm issible he a rsa y , this princ iple doe s not a llow the Gove rnm e nt to offe r a bridge d portions of
sta te m e nts tha

t distort the

m e a ning of a

sta te m e nt.” (quoting C

o llic ott , 92 F.3d a

t 983)). Inde e d, whe n c ourts ha ve re fuse d to re c o gniz e the c o m m on la w rule ’ s
trum ping func t ion, som e judge s ha ve c om e to re gre t tha t de c i sion. Se e U

nite d State s v . Adams , 722 F.3d 788, 826-27 & n.31 (6th C ir. 2013) (c ritic iz ing the Sixth C irc uit’ s “ ba

r a ga inst a dm itting he a rsa y ” unde r the rule of c om ple te ne ss a s

“ le a v[ing] de fe nda

nts without re dre ss” for “ the gove rnm e n t’ s unfa ir pre se nta tion of the e vide n c e ” a nd sugge s ting e n ba nc re c onside ra tion of tha

t rule ). The trum p ing func tion se rve d by

the rule of c om

p l e te ne ss is a ll the m ore im porta nt whe re , a s he re , a c rim ina l de fe nda nt’ s c o nstitutiona

l right a ga inst se lfinc rim ina tion is involve d. As num e rous c ourts ha v e re c ogniz e d, a c rim ina l
8de fe nda

n t should not be forc e d to c hoose be t we e n le a v i ng the gove rnm e nt’ s distorte d pre se n ta t ion una nswe re d a nd surre nde ring the Fifth Am e ndm e nt right not
to te stify

. Se e Sutton , 801 F.2d a t 1370 (“ Sinc e this wa s a

c rim ina l c a s e [the de fe nda n t] ha d a c onstitutiona

l right not to te stify , a nd it wa s thus ne c e s sa ry for [the de fe nda

nt] to re but the gove rnm e nt’ s infe re nc e with the e xc lude d portions of the s e re c o rdings.” ); Unite d State s v . Marin , 669 F.2d 73, 85 n.6 (2d C ir. 1982) (“ [W ] he n the gove rnm e nt offe rs in e vide n c e a de fe nda nt’ s c onfe ssion a

nd in

c onfe s sing the de fe nda

nt ha s a lso m a de e xc ulpa

t ory sta te m e n t s tha

t the
gove rnm e nt se e ks to om i t, the de fe nda nt’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt rights m a y be im plic a t e d.” ); Unite d State

s v . W alk e r , 652 F.2d 708, 713-14 (7th C ir. 1981) (obse rving “ the Gove rnm e nt’ s inc om ple te pre se nta tion m a y ha ve pa i nte d a distorte d pic ture of [the c rim ina l de fe nda nt’ s] prior te stim ony

whic h he wa s powe rle s s to re m e dy

without ta

king the sta

nd” a nd a c knowle dging tha t “ [f] o rc ing the d e fe nda

nt to ta ke the sta nd in orde r to introduc e the om itte d e xc ulpa tory portions of [a ] c onfe ssion . . . is a de nia l of his right a ga inst se lf-inc rim i na tion” (a lte rna tions in origina

l) (quoting 1 J. W e inste in & M . B e rge r, W e i nste in's Ev ide n c e ¶ 106[01] (1979)) (inte rna l quota tion m a rks om itte d)); c

f

. S immons v

. Unite d State s , 390 U.S. 377, 394 (1968) (“ [O] ne c o n stitutiona l right should [not]

9ha ve to be surre nde re d in orde r to a s se rt a nothe r.” ). 3 I do not re a d our c a se la

w a s pre c luding us from

a pply ing the trum

p ing princ iple he re a nd m a king it a pa rt of our c irc uit la

w. Ne ithe r Unite d

State s v
. Orte ga , 203 F.3d 675 (9th C ir. 2000), nor U nite d State

s v . Fe rnande

z , 839 F.2d 639 (9th C i r. 1988), e xpre ssly b a rs a distric t c ourt from

a llowing a c rim ina l de fe nda n t to introduc e othe rwise ina dm issible e vide nc e unde r the c o m m on la w rule of c om

ple te ne ss whe n the prose c ution a b use s the a sy m

m e t ric he a rsa y rule to introduc e a

m isle a dingly

ta ilore d snippe t of the de fe nda nt’ s sta te m e nt. 4 In Orte

ga ,

3 Eve n whe n a

c rim ina l de fe nda

nt c hoose s to te stify , the trum ping func tion re m a ins im

porta n t. Abse nt trum

ping, the de fe n da

nt c o uld te stify

to the issue s (i.e ., unde rly ing fa c t s), but c ould not, c onsiste nt with the he a rsa y rule , te stify

to the re m a inde r of the trunc a te d sta te m e nt offe re d by

the prose c u tion. Te stify ing to the unde rly ing fa c t s m a y

not be a s e ffe c tive a s providing the c o m ple te sta t e m e nt. Se e Na nc e , A The ory

of Ve r bal C

omple te ne

ss , supra , a t 846-47 n.68 (“ One m ight a rgue tha t trum p ing the he a rsa y rule is unne c e ssa ry in vie w of the oppone nt’ s opportunity

to te stify dire c tly

to the issue s, one of the fa c tors tha t se e m s to wa

rra nt the a sy m m e try in the a dm i ssions e xc e ption in the first pla c e . This opportunity , howe v e r, will ofte n be ina de qua te , sinc e a trie r of fa c t ignora

nt of the true te nor of the h e a rsa y

is like ly to disc ount the in-c ourt, se lf-se rving te stim ony in fa vor of the out-of-c ourt, a dve rse a dm ission.” (c ita tion om i tte d)).

4 W e ha ve he ld “ R

ule 106 doe s not c om

pe l a dm ission of othe rwise ina d m issible he a rsa y e v i de nc e .” C o llic ott , 92 F.3d a

t 983 (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota t ion m a rks om itte d); se e also Orte g a , 203 F.3d a

t 682 (c iting C

ollic ott , 92 F.3d a t 983). B ut we ha ve ne ve r so he ld re ga rding the c ommon law

rule of c om ple t e ne ss, whic h is the re le v a nt doc trine he re . Nor ha ve we e ve r he ld distric t c ourts la c k disc re t ion unde r R ule 106 or the c om

m on la w rule to a dm it othe rwise ina d m issible he a rsa y whe n the gove rnm e n t a buse s the he a rsa y

rule to introduc e (c ontinue d...) 1 0the c om

m on la w rule of c o m

ple te ne ss wa s not im

plic a t e d, be c a

use we c onc l ude d

“ [t] he offic e r’ s te stim ony did not distort the

m e a ning of Orte ga ’ s sta

te m e n t s.” 203

4 (...c ontinue d) m isle a ding e vide nc e . S

e e C astro-C abre ra , 534 F. Supp. 2d a t 1161 (“ [W ] hile the R ule of C om

ple te n e ss c a nnot be use d in a ge ne ra l se n se a s a

n e nd run a

round the usua l rule s of a dm issibility , e a c h a na ly sis m ust be done on a

c a se -by -c a se ba sis in orde r to a void the injustic e o f ha

ving the m e a ning of a

de fe nda nt’ s sta te m e nt distorte d by

its la c k of c o nte xt.” ). As C astro-C abre ra i ntim a te s, our c a se s de c lining to re c ogniz e a trum ping func tion of R

ule 106 ha

ve not involve d m a nipula tion of the he a rsa y

rule to introduc e a

“ m isle a dingly -ta ilore d snippe t,” le t a lone in a c rim ina l tria l whe n a

de fe nda nt c a nnot c orre c t the distortion e xc e pt by wa iving his privile ge a ga inst se lf-inc rim ina tion. Se e id. a t 1161 n.6 (distinguishing Orte ga a nd C ollic ott on the ground tha t “ the re is not a

n indic a tion in e ithe r [c a se ] tha t the offe re d portions of sta te m e nts c re a te d distortion or m isre pre se nta tion of the m e a ning of the sta

te m e nt” ); Orte

ga , 203 F.3d a

t 683 (“ The offic e r’ s te stim ony did not distort the

m e a ning of Orte ga ’ s sta

te m e nts be c a

use Orte ga

te stifie d to the sta te m e nts not m e ntione d

by the offic e r.” ); C

o llic o tt , 92 F.3d a

t 983 (“ [T] he purpose of R

ule 106 would not be

se rve d if Za idi’ s sta

te m e nts we re a d

m itte d be c a use the re wa s no c onc e rn in this c a se tha t C ollic o tt introduc e d a m isle a dingly -ta ilore d snippe t from Za idi’ s sta te m e nt to Ke hl.” ). Se e also Unite d State s v . Mitc he ll , 502 F.3d 931, 965 (9th C i r. 2007) (“ The inc ulpa tory sta te m e nts e lic ite d on dire c t

e xa m ina tion of Age nts Kirk a n d Dunc a n we re not ta

ke n out of c onte xt or othe rwise distorte d.” (c iting Orte g a , 203 F.3d a

t 683, a nd Unite d State

s v . N ak ai , 413 F.3d 1019, 1022 (9th C ir. 2005))); N ak ai , 413 F.3d a

t 1022 (“ In ne ithe r insta

nc e wa s the una dm itte d he a rsa y ne c e ssa ry to pla c e the a dm itte d sta te m e nt in c o nte xt.” (c i ting Orte ga , 203 F.3d a

t 682)); Unite d

State s v . Burre son , 643 F.2d 1344, 1349 (9th C ir. 1981) (holding the distric t c ourt did not a

b use its disc re tion unde r R

ule 106 whe n

it “ c a re fully

c onside re d the e ntire tra nsc ript, a nd a dde d m a te ria l to the e x c e rpt offe re d by the gove rnm e nt to put it in prope r c onte xt . . . [but] c onc lude d tha

t the portion a

ppe lla nts wishe d to subm it wa s irre le va nt a nd wa s ina dm issa

ble he a rsa y ” ). W ha te ve r the lim its of the trum ping func tion of the rule of c om

ple te ne ss, a

t m i nim u m it should a

pply in the pa

rtic ula r c irc um sta

nc e s whe re the gove rnm e nt ha s a buse d the a sy m

m e tric a l na

ture of the he a rsa y rule in a c rim ina l tria l a

nd e xc lusion unde r the he a rsa y rule would im

plic a te a c rim ina l de fe nda n t’ s Fifth Am e ndm e nt right not to te stify on his or he r own be ha lf. 1 1F.3d a t 683. Furthe rm ore , we he ld re quiring the de fe nda n t to re ly on his own
te stim ony a s to his e xc u l pa tory

sta te m e n ts “ d i d not infringe upon his Fifth Am e ndm e nt right not to te stify be c a use he ha d alre ady

te stifie d prior to the offic e r’ s te stim ony .” Id. (e m pha s is a dde d). In Fe rnande z , the re wa s no issue of

c om ple t e ne ss, a s the de fe nda

nt sought to e lic it his sta

n da lone de nia l m a de to a

n FB I a ge nt following his a rre st. Se e 839 F.2d a

t 640. Thus, Fe r

nande z sa y s nothing a bout the sc ope of the rule of c om ple te ne s s. * * * In sum , I would hold the

distric t c ourt m isa

ppre he n de d the rule s of e vide nc e in two signific a

nt re spe c ts. First, the

c ourt e rre d by lim iting the rule of

c om ple t e ne ss to writte n

a n d re c orde d sta

te m e nts; unde r R

ule 611, the c ourt wa s fre e to a v a il itse lf of the c om

m on la w rule of c om

ple t e ne s s, whic h e x te nds to

unre c o rde d ora l sta

te m e nts a s we ll. Se c ond, I would hold the rule of c om

ple te ne ss

se rve s a trum ping func tion tha

t ove rride s the he a rsa y

rule in lim ite d c i rc um sta

nc e s. None the le ss, I c onc ur in the re sult re a c h e d by the m a jority be c a

use I c a nnot

sa y the distric t c o urt’ s m isa

p p re he nsions re ga

rding the sc ope of its a

uthority we re pre j udic i a l. Se e Unite d

State s v . Morale

s , 108 F.3d 1031, 1040 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba nc ). Quinone s fa ile d to m a ke a n a de qua te offe r of proof to show tha t R odrigue z would ha ve te stifie d to the a lle ge d e xc ulpa tory sta te m e nt. Se e Fe d. R . Evid.
1 2103(a )(2). W he n a s ke d on c ross e xa m ina tion whe t he r Quinone s ha d

sa id a ny thing

e lse “ a bout him driving the boa t,” R odrigue z te stifie d: “ He sa id he a l so ne e d e d

m one y , a nd he wa s c om ing he re to se e fa m ily .” R o drigue z did not te stify or sugge s t tha

t Quinone s ha d sa id he drove the boa t only while the c a

pta in wa s othe rwise oc c upie d. Although R odrigue z ’ s re sponse wa s stric ke n upon obje c tion, he m ost like ly

would ha ve give n the sa

m e a nswe r ha d the c o urt pe rm itte d Quinone s to c ross e xa m ine him a bout the c o m

ple te posta

rre st sta te m e nt. B e c a

use Quinone s ha s proffe re d no ba sis to c onc lude R odrigue z would ha ve offe re d the

a lle ge d e x c ulpa

tory te stim ony i f the c ha lle nge d c ross e xa m ina tion ha d be e n

a llowe d, I c a nnot c onc lude the distric t c ourt’ s m isunde rsta ndings re ga

rding the rule of c om ple te ne s s we re pre

judic i a l.

1 3