Opinion ID: 779816
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admissibility of Gloria Kehoe's Testimony

Text: 36 Gloria Kehoe testified regarding statements that Daniel Lee had made to her regarding the Mueller murders. She stated that Lee had said that Bill [Mueller] was one tough son of a bitch because he fought so hard and how dumb Nancy was because she thought it was real and helped put the trash bag on her head because she thought it was real. Lee went on to tell Gloria that Kehoe had paid him a thousand dollars and a rifle for his part in the robbery and murders. Finally, he told Gloria that he and Kehoe had disposed of the bodies by weighing them with rocks and throwing them into the river. 37 Kehoe argues that the district court erred in allowing Gloria Kehoe to recount the foregoing statements because they do not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. Kehoe further asserts that because Lee did not testify at trial, Kehoe was denied the right to cross-examine Lee in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The district court held that Gloria's testimony concerning Lee's statements implicating Kehoe was admissible as nonhearsay, in that those statements constituted adoptive admissions by Kehoe within the meaning of Rule 801(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. We review the district court's determinations concerning admissibility of evidence for abuse of discretion. Maddox v. Patterson, 905 F.2d 1178, 1179 (8th Cir.1990). We review violations of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment for harmless error. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 22-23, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Lufkins v. Leapley, 965 F.2d 1477, 1480 (8th Cir.1992). 38 A statement is not hearsay if [it] is offered against a party and is a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(B). For an out-of-court statement to constitute an adoptive admission, the defendant must have been present when the statement was made, have understood it, and have had an opportunity to deny it. United States v. Disbrow, 768 F.2d 976, 980-81 (8th Cir.1985) (citing United States v. Lilley, 581 F.2d 182, 187 (8th Cir.1978)). Kehoe was present when Lee made the statements to which Gloria Kehoe testified. The district court found nothing to suggest that Kehoe had not understood Lee's statements. Kehoe actively participated in the conversation and did not contradict or deny Lee's statements, which were corroborated by the evidence presented in the case and by Kehoe's own, independent confession to Gloria. Because we conclude that Gloria Kehoe's testimony concerning Lee's statements was not hearsay, there is no Confrontation Clause problem. United States v. Woods, 301 F.3d 556, 561 (7th Cir.2002); see also Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078, 85 L.Ed.2d 425 (1990) (The nonhearsay aspect of [the] confession... raises no confrontation clause concerns.). A major reason underlying the constitutional confrontation rule is to give a defendant charged with crime an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 126, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). Lee's statements to which Gloria testified are Kehoe's own because he had adopted them. He effectively was a witness against himself, thus Gloria's testimony did not violate his rights under the Confrontation Clause. See Woods, 301 F.3d at 561. 39 Kehoe also argues that the district court erred in refusing to grant immunity for Lee so that Kehoe could call him to testify regarding these statements. Lee refused to testify on Fifth Amendment privilege grounds. We have stated that, assuming a district court has such authority, granting a defense witness immunity after he has invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege is an `extraordinary remedy' to be used sparingly and then only where the proffered evidence is `clearly exculpatory.' United States v. Blanche, 149 F.3d 763, 767 (8th Cir.1998). Kehoe has made no showing that Lee's out-of-court statements would be exculpatory; in fact, they strongly inculpate both Lee and Kehoe. Accordingly the district court did not err in refusing to grant immunity to Lee.