Opinion ID: 753501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Mary Muchmore's Hearsay Testimony

Text: 15 Appellants planned to have Mary Muchmore testify regarding statements made by Bundy which included an admission that she had failed to listen to tapes of ACC sales representatives. 16 Although the testimony would have been hearsay, Appellants argued that Bundy's admission constituted a statement against her penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Independently, Appellants argued that Bundy's admission should have been admitted as proof of third-party culpability. See Perry v.. Rushen, 713 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir.1983). 17 We find no merit to these claims. V. Conduct of District Judge 18 Appellants allege that the district judge exhibited a high level of bias against them and a key defense witness, Alan Pick (Pick). Although the district judge demonstrated irascibility, he did not jeopardize Appellants' right to a fair trial. Significantly, most of the judge's remarks and conduct occurred outside the presence of the jury. For example, the jury was not present for the exchange concerning Pick's honesty in which the judge unexpectedly left the bench. Neither was the jury present when the judge showed little regard for this court. I may be in serious trouble with the Ninth Circuit, and that is not my problem or my concern, I try to do what is right. 19 Not only were these comments made outside the jury's presence, they did not amount to actual bias. See U.S. v. Rutgard, 116 F.3d 1270 (9th Cir.1997). Moreover, any bias which the jury might have detected was cured by the instruction to the jury not to read into anything that the judge had said or done. See U.S. v. Sanchez-Lopez, 879 F.2d 541, 553 (9th Cir.1989). 20 In short, while the district judge's remarks and behavior were less than admirable, there is no clear indication of actual bias or that the jury perceived partiality.