1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

ERICA L. SEGER

Assistant U.S. Attorney

State Bar No. 022681

405 W. Congress St., Suite 4800

Tucson, AZ 85701-5040

Tel. (520) 620-7300

Email: erica.seger@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

Sinisa Djurdjic,

Defendant.

CR-17-01658-TUC-JGZ (DTF)

MOTION IN LIMINE RE: 

EXCULPATORY STATEMENTS

Now comes the United States of America, by and through its attorneys 

undersigned, and files this motion in limine requesting that this Court bar the 

defendant from introducing his own out-of-court statements through other witnesses.

The defendant should be precluded from introducing his own out-of-court 

statements through the testimony of another witness. While the Government may use 

the statements of a defendant against him under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) 

(admission by party-opponent), this rule may not be relied upon by defendant because 

he is not the proponent of the evidence and, if introduced by him, the evidence would 

not be offered against him (but rather on his own behalf). See United States v. Ortega, 

203 F.3d 675, 682 (9th Cir.2000.) (Defendant could not introduce his own non-selfinculpatory hearsay statements). 

Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-DTF Document 56 Filed 09/09/19 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The defendant’s non self-inculpatory statements are inadmissible even if they 

were made contemporaneously with other self inculpatory statements. See Williamson 

v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 599, 114 S.Ct. 2431, 129 L.Ed.2d 476 (1994). The self 

inculpatory statements, when offered by the government, are admissions by a party 

opponent and are therefore not hearsay, see Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2), but the non self 

inculpatory statements are inadmissible hearsay. See Williamson, 512 U.S. at 599, 114 

S.Ct. 2431 (finding that [t]he fact that a person is making a broadly self inculpatory 

confession does not make more credible the confession's non self inculpatory parts 

[which are hearsay]). To rule otherwise, the defendant would be able to place his 

exculpatory statements before the jury without subjecting [himself] to cross 

examination, precisely what the hearsay rule forbids. United States v. Fernandez, 839 

F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir.1988). 

Furthermore, the defendant cannot rely on the rule of completeness to introduce 

his own hearsay statements. Under Ninth Circuit law, Rule 106 does not allow 

admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay. Ortega, 203 F.3d at 683 (Even if the 

rule of completeness did apply, exclusion of Ortega’s exculpatory statements was not 

proper because these statements would still have constituted inadmissible hearsay.); 

United States v. Collicott, 92 F.3d 973, 983 (9th Cir. 1996) (Because Zaidi’s out-ofcourt statements to Kehl do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule, they are 

inadmissible, regardless of Rule 106.)

Accordingly, the Court should enter an order precluding the defendant from 

introducing his own hearsay statements through the testimony of another witness.

Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-DTF Document 56 Filed 09/09/19 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 9th day of September, 2019.

MICHAEL BAILEY

United States Attorney

District of Arizona

s/ Erica L. Seger

Erica L. Seger

Assistant United States Attorney

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this day 9th of September, 2019, to:

Matthew Green and Matthew McGuire

Attorney for the Defendant

Case 4:17-cr-01658-JGZ-DTF Document 56 Filed 09/09/19 Page 3 of 3