Document: 512 U.S. 594114 S.Ct. 2431129 L.Ed.2d 476 Fredel WILLIAMSON, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 93-5256. Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 25, 1994. Decided June 27, Syllabus * After Reginald Harris refused to testify at petitioner Williamson's federal trial on cocaine possession and distribution charges, District ruled that, under Federal Rule Evidence 804(b)(3)'s hearsay exception for statements against penal interest, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent could recount two custodial interviews in which had freely confessed receiving transporting drugs question, but also implicated Williamson as drugs' owner. was eventually convicted, Appeals affirmed. Held: The judgment is vacated, case remanded. 981 F.2d 1262 (CA111992), vacated Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion with respect Parts I, II-A, II-B, concluding: 1. most faithful reading 804(b)(3) — renders admissible "statement[s] . so far ten[d] subject declarant criminal liability that reasonable person would not have made [them] unless believing be true" it does allow admission non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are within broader narrative generally self-inculpatory. Although statutory term "statement" can mean either an extended declaration or single remark, principle behind Rule, discernible from text, points clearly narrower reading, only those remarks confession individually self-inculpatory covered. founded commonsense notion people, who especially honest, tend make believe them true. This extend confession's non-self- inculpatory parts actually self-exculpatory, collateral ones neutral interest. A district court may just assume statement because part fuller confession, when implicates someone else. policy expressed Rule's text clear enough outweighs whatever force lies ambiguous contained Advisory Committee Notes Rule. Pp. ____. 2. foregoing eviscerate interest exception. There many circumstances inculpate defendant. Even confessions arrested accomplices truly self-inculpatory, rather than merely attempts shift blame curry favor. question always whether issue sufficiently declarant's language, this answered light all surrounding circumstances. O'CONNOR, joined by SCALIA, concluded Part II-C remand, must inquire first instance each Harris' J., announced BLACKMUN, STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, II-C, joined. filed concurring opinion. judgment, KENNEDY, REHNQUIST, C.J., THOMAS, Benjamin S. Waxman, petitioner. John F. Manning, respondent. Court, except II-C. 1 In we clarify scope Fed.Rule Evid. 804(b)(3). 2 deputy sheriff stopped rental car driven weaving highway. consented search car, revealed 19 kilograms suitcases trunk. promptly arrested. 3 Shortly after arrest, Special Agent Donald Walton (DEA) interviewed him telephone. During conversation, said he got unidentified Cuban Fort Lauderdale; belonged Williamson; night particular dumpster. connected physical evidence: luggage bore initials sister, listed additional driver agreement, envelope addressed receipt girlfriend's address were found glove compartment. 4 Several hours later, spoke person. interview, rented few days earlier Lauderdale meet Williamson. According Harris, gotten acquaintance, put note telling how deliver drugs. repeated been instructed leave certain dumpster, return his without waiting anyone pick up 5 then took steps arrange controlled delivery cocaine. But preparing interview room, "got out [his] chair half step toward [Walton] said, 'I can't let you do that,' threw hands 'that's true, I go there no reason.' " App. 40. told lied about Cuban, note, real story, Atlanta Williamson, traveling front another car. added stopped, turned around drove past location stop, where see its trunk open. Ibid. Because apparently seen police searching explained impossible delivery. Id., 41. 6 source afraid 61, 68; id., 30-31. Though himself, did want story recorded, sign written version statement. 24-25. testified promised report any cooperation Assistant Attorney. reward other benefit cooperating. 25-26. 7 convicted possessing intent distribute, conspiring possess interstate promote cocaine, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; 18 § 1952. When called trial, refused, though prosecution gave use immunity ordered held contempt. 804(b)(3), relate what him: 8 "The ruling [Rule ], deals 9 "First, defendant therefore, 10 "Second, declarant, unavailable. 11 "And third, yesterday, sufficient corroborating ensure trustworthiness testimony. Therefore, [United v. Harrell, 788 1524 (CA11 1986) these implicating [Williamson] admissible." 51-52. 12 appealed conviction, claiming violated Confrontation Clause Sixth Amendment. Eleventh Circuit affirmed opinion, judgt. order reported (1992), granted certiorari. 510 ----, 114 681, 126 649 (1994). II A. 13 rule, 802, premised theory out-of-court hazards. might lying; misperceived events relates; faulty memory; words misunderstood taken context listener. And ways dangers minimized in-court oath, witness' awareness gravity proceedings, jury's ability observe demeanor, and, importantly, right opponent cross-examine absent things court. 14 Nonetheless, Rules recognize some kinds less dangers, therefore general rule inadmissible. One such category covers interest: 15 time [their] making tended position statement[s] true." 16 To decide determine means "statement," 801(a)(1) defines "an oral assertion." possible meaning, "a narrative," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2229, defn. 2(a) (1961), connotes declaration. Under entire contains both long aggregate inculpates him. Another meaning remark," ibid., 2(b), cover declarations See 131 (defining "assertion" "declaration"); 586 "declaration" "statement"). 17 directly resolve matter, reading. people simply definition "statement." fact broadly more credible parts. effective lie mix falsehood truth, truth seems particularly persuasive nature. respect, proved false, himself admitted during second interrogation. generalization becomes applicable. Self-exculpatory exactly likely false; mere proximity other, increase plausibility self-exculpatory statements. We cannot agree JUSTICE KENNEDY's suggestion read expressing way admissible, post, Nothing suggests admissibility should turn reliable; says nothing statement's reliability. reason why ____, treated differently excluded. 20 Congress certainly could, constraints Clause, based their will lightly language anything inconsistent underlying theory. Cooter & Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 394-395, 408-409, 110 2447, 2455-2456, 2462-2463, 359 (1990). our view, purposes true "[T]he arrest codefendant traditionally viewed special suspicion. Due strong motivation implicate exonerate codefendant's ordinary evidence." Lee Illinois, 530, 541, 106 2056, 2062, 90 514 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted); Bruton States, 391 123, 136, 88 1620, 1628, (1968); Dutton Evans, 400 74, 98, 91 210, 224 (1970) (HARLAN, result). B share Kennedy's fears "eviscerate[s] exception," ____ omitted), makes lack "meaningful effect," 22 For instance, squarely "yes, killed X" being tried co-conspirator Pinkerton 328 640, 647, 66 1180, 1184, L.Ed. 1489 (1946). Likewise, showing knew something, situations help jury infer confederates well. evidence, accomplice's directly: "I robbing bank Friday morning," coupled someone's testimony off together morning, evidence participated robbery. 23 Moreover, determined viewing context. face hid gun Joe's apartment" crime; find murder weapon, "Sam went house" shoes realize linked Joe Sam Sam's conspiracy. give significant details crime also, depending situation, "that true," circumstances.* C 24 case, however, conclude properly admitted. Some 804(b)(3); suitcase, essentially forfeited defense charge possession, knowledge. little liability. think else decrease practical exposure liability, least sentencing goes. Small fish big conspiracy often get shorter sentences running whole show, see, e.g., Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual 3B1.2 (Nov. 1993), small willing authorities catch ones, 5K1.1. 25 record shows inquired As above, fact-intensive inquiry, require careful examination activity involved; remand conduct inquiry instance. 26 disposition, need claim inadmissible White 502 112 736, 116 848 "firmly rooted" purposes. Compare, Seeley, 892 1, (CA1 1989) (holding firmly rooted), Flores, 985 770 (CA5 1993) contrary). very genuinely requires itself one "particularized guarantees trustworthiness" Clause. 543-545, 2063-2064, (1986). whether, Courts held, sentence "A tending expose offered exculpate accused indicate statement" (emphasis added) inculpating supported See, Alvarez, 584 694, 701 1978); Taggart, 944 837, 840 1991). remanded further proceedings consistent 27 So ordered. 28 concurring. 29 join Court's understand simplistic view KENNEDY attributes it. 30 analyzing statement-against-penal-interest rules, relevant be, directs, "at quite connote (and thereby inculpatory) unsupportable. ante, 31 Employing allows not, states, "eviscerate exception." Post, quotations citation omitted). obviously (in sense having much tendency true) consisting committed X element Y." Consider, example, stated: "On into gunshop (lawfully) bought type handgun ammunition. my 1958 blue Edsel parked First City Bank keys ignition driver's door ajar. inside, robbed shot security guard." has sentences, doubt judge admit them. 32 magically transformed names codefendant. lieutenant organized operation described inner workings extortion protection racket, naming actors racketeering and/or Of course, person, done, minimizing culpability exposure, bear meets standard. however furthered clouding waters manufactured categories "collateral neutral" self-serving," remark narrative) standard set forth djQ whom SOUTER join, judgment. 33 II-B excepts "those [a narrative] self-inculpatory." Ante, explains, "does self-inculpatory," ____; applies "sufficiently 'that true.' quoting 34 Further, recognizes untrustworthiness incriminating incentive downplay own role comparison others, hopes leniency exchange cooperation. reason, accounts suspect's ("when accuses stands gain another, accusation presumptively suspect subjected scrutiny cross-examination"); ibid. (" '[T]he co-defendant co-defendant's evidence.' ") (quoting 141, 1630-1631, (1968) (White, dissenting)). 35 Unlike recounted DEA E. Walton, fit, part, arguably too closely intertwined self-serving ranked trustworthy. caught red-handed kilos first-time offender minimum 121/2 years' imprisonment. 2D1.1(c) (1993); ch. 5, pt. (sentencing table). He denied knowing car's trunk, strategy brought prospect thwarting prosecution. involvement, shifted man named Shawn). 36 Most focused Williamson's, Harris', conduct. following: brief telephone conversation shortly apprehended, obtained Lauderdale, Florida; stated dumpster area evening. 37. later day. included name contract going 38-39. sought delivery, retracted saying false. 37 account differed details, continued paint "big fish." driving pulled over side road; vantage point, observed officer inspecting contents 40-41. And, repeated, "the arrangements acquisition transportation Mr. Williamson." 38 extent incriminate provided marginal cumulative guilt. They project image acting striving mightily principal responsibility Sarmiento-Perez, 633 1092, 1102 1981) ("[The declarant] well motivated misrepresent others enterprise, including ostensibly disserving portions it."). 39 reasons, hold none 804(b)(3).* characterized Walton's "very damning." 50. prosecutor considered prejudicial she counsel's motion mistrial erroneously 51 ("If [trial] determines improper [Agent Walton] say necessity declare mistrial, remove heard Government [defense counsel's] [for mistrial], burden overcome 11th Circuit."). concur decision vacate Appeals' examined record; opportunity argue erroneous introduced constituted harmless error. Crim.Proc. 52(a); Kotteakos 750, 776, 1239, 1253, 1557 (1946) (error reversal conviction "highly probable error substantial injurious effect influence determining verdict"). 40 THE CHIEF THOMAS 41 802 states numerous exceptions. At here 42 "[a] contrary pecuniary proprietary civil render invalid statement." 43 rationale seldom "make damaging themselves satisfied good 804, U.S.C.App., p. 789. (such teller") related "John Doe getaway car"). here. 44 long-running debate among commentators Dean Wigmore strongest favor admissibility, arguing accepted, specific every same J. Wigmore, 1465, 271 (3d ed. 1940) deleted); 339 (J. Chadbourne rev. 1974); Higham Ridgway, East. 109, 103 Eng.Rep. 717 (K.B.1808). fairly indicating sincerity accuracy," 1940). McCormick's approach regarding guarded. argued character; exclusion character. bank," and" (save possibility charges). On hand, "John, teller" C. McCormick, Law 256, pp. 552-553 (1954) (hereinafter McCormick). Professor Jefferson narrowest approach, reliability stems confined "to proof interest." Jefferson, Declarations Against Interest: An Exception Hearsay 58 Harv.L.Rev. 62-63 (1944). neither nor admissible. 45 Enacted 1975, establishes penal, proprietary, pecuniary, legal distinguish interests). tell us however. Comment, Inculpatory Statements Penal Interest, Calif.L.Rev. 1189, 1202 (1978) ("The provides guidance accommodate comfortably doctrine excluding admitting statements"). resolves issue, adopting extreme (adopting "narrower reading" "Rule cover[s] self-inculpatory"); (GINSBURG, judgment); cf. (SCALIA, concurring). reaches conclusion relying "principle Rule" reasons "expressed text," "simply extend" conceding statements," "lightly theory." 46 With disagree analysis. All justification was, still is, resolved consensus authorities. Indeed, come close consensus, support supra, Given submit silent incorporates competing positions. silence Jefferson's respecting Wigmore's. 47 expresses authoritative guides question. three sources demonstrate statements: Note, common law presumption enact statutes almost effect. 48 First, Note fact, refers terms confront: "[o]rdinarily third-party thought exculpating accused, necessarily case: include him, statements." 790. forthright direction have." Again, reasoning begs question: What statements? answer apply practice indicates pay attention Note. referred interpreting Evidence, jettison well-established Huddleston 485 688, 108 1496, 1500-1501, 99 771 (1988); Owens, 484 554, 562, 838, 844, 98 951 Bourjaily 483 171, 179, n. 2, 107 2775, 2780, 97 144 (1987); Abel, 469 45, 51, 105 465, 468-469, 83 450 (1984). 49 Second, adopt Absent indications, presume intended principles used applied law. Daubert Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 113 2786, 2793-2794, 125 Green Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 504, 521-522, 109 1981, 1990-1991, 104 557 (1989); U.S., 51-52, S.Ct., 468-469; Midlantic Nat. Jersey Dept. Environ mental Protection, 474 494, 501, 755, 759-760, 859 ("if intends legislation change interpretation judicially created concept, specific"). Application interpretive "From beginning exception, prove stated, facts Harv.L.Rev., 57; McCormick 256; 1465 itself, stating "general theory" indication state enacted. legislated background allowing burial 50 yet third weighing interpretation, accused. dispute contemplates textual contrary, meaningful American Paper Institute, Inc. Electric Power Service 461 402, 421, 1921, 1932, 76 (1983) (court "imput[e] purpose paralyze hand other") That counsels recognized, cause Calif.L.Rev., 1207; Interest Colum.L.Rev. 159, 163 ("most portion specifically rarely counter interest") (footnote Davenport, Co-Conspirator Criminal Prosecutions: Functional Analysis, 85 1378, 1396 (1972) ("the compatriot never interest"). commentator indicated, reached today 1213. sure, adopted apply. stole goods, stolen goods show stolen. Weinstein M. Berger, Weinstein's 804(b)(3)[04], 804-164 rare precise more, 52 finally Thus, store alone," store" Standards Admissibility Emerging Majority 56 B.U.L.Rev. 148, 165, 95 (1976). extraordinary. gives explanation exculpatory limited 166 ("A strict application lead arbitrary rejection valuable evidence"). III 53 course remaining admissible; limiting refers, treatise, Wigmore's, "balancing dis[serving] aspects declaration." noted Wigmore's "every statement," expansive. latitude contextual [i.e., collateral] giving defensible, bringing contextually questionable." 552. containing facts, "admit declaration, exclude parts" "where serving severed." Id. 553. It thus appears reference apparent incorporation of) statement, 54 context, tends reduce charges mitigate punishment liable. Graham, Practice Procedure 6795, 810, (1992). masked gunmen teller, robber triggerman kind (collateral gun"). (The concedes Brief 12.) By contrast, capable committing involved parties, neutral, self-serving. 'John bank' neutral"); B.U.L.Rev., 166, 96 ("An decisions reveals exceptions, self-serving"); York, 933 1343, 1362-1364 (CA7 1991); Casamento, 887 1141, 1171 (CA2 1989). 55 Apart limit collateral, separate applicable cases authorities; guilt extent, example obtain lenient treatment, conscience. takes potentiality courts examine "motivated desire authorities." recognition "even motive self-interest otherwise, excluded." unavailable, 804(a), questioned exact forced devise concern justify unreliable. guilt, explicit promise dropped reduction prison unreliable Magana-Olvera, 917 401, 407-409 (CA9 1990); Scopo, 861 339, 348 1988) pleading agreement government punished crimes allocuted, allocution constitute extreme, remain required 348-349; Garcia, 897 1413, 1421 1990) (declarant favor; "voluntarily advised Miranda rights enter plea agreements government"). line-drawing appropriate necessary, lest police, result contemplate. 57 sum, adhere following (opinion J.) ("Some 804(b)(3)"). If so, limits. Consistent (if, shifts committed). addition, favorable offer preliminary Judge 104(a). determination calls depends large case. outlined difficult, factbound determination. Judges, better able evaluate various appellate court, given wide discretion Like then, analysis syllabus constitutes prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 499. endorsing reject narrative, (but parts, 11), read, part: [the accused], [Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 1074, 934 (1965), ] excluded Whether Thus while custody, hence fail qualify spoken different circumstances, difficulty qualifying. balancing dissenting [sic] discussed 256." clear, Committee's endorsement treatise way: able. [A]dmit[ting] exclud[ing] realistic method adjusting trustworthiness, 551-553 (footnotes Without deciding weight compare Schiavone Fortune, 477 21, 31, 2379, 2385, (Notes weight), 528, 1994-1995, (1989) judgment) ought have. believes above disagree. provisions 801-804. furtherance 801(d)(2)(E), circumstantial 804(b)(5), catch-all Nor "by coconspirator party conspiracy" hearsay. initially appeared base rule. 34-36; ("I statement."). prosecutor, "agree[d] counsel] totally" "[they are] conspiracy"; testimony, explained, "not co-conspirator] 47. *, suggest 801(d)(2)(E).

Category: 0