Opinion ID: 550583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Misrepresenting Hearsay

Text: 5 Murray alleges that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by misleading the grand jury into believing that a witness was giving an eyewitness account rather than relating hearsay. In the Ninth Circuit, an indictment may be based solely on hearsay. United States v. Al Mudarris, 695 F.2d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 932 (1983). 6 Murray's claim arises from the following exchange that occurred before the grand jury, in which the prosecutor questioned Agent Magers: 7 Q: Now, in addition, did Mr. Murray have anything on his person? 8 A. When Mr. Murray was arrested on the sun porch, they found a--what we call a bindle of white powder, which was methamphetamine, in his trouser pocket. 9 Q. What else did you find? 10 A. We also found a couple pieces of paper with a recipe on how to make methamphetamine. 11 (emphasis added). 12 The witness, Agent Magers, was not the person who actually made the discovery about which the prosecutor was inquiring. Murray alleges that the prosecutor knew this, and that the prosecutor's use of the word you in his question misled the jury members into believing that they were hearing eyewitness, rather than hearsay, testimony. This argument is without merit. Agent Magers never claimed that he personally found the items; in fact, he specifically used the terms they and we, making clear that he was discussing the work of the group of agents involved in the search, not necessarily his own work. This exchange does not amount to flagrant error, which is necessary to meet the standard for dismissal under Lazzarolo, 869 F.2d at 1357.