Opinion ID: 798180
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bullock's Alleged Statement to Ms. Rayborn

Text: 17 According to Ms. Rayborn, when the Rayborns and Bullock were at the federal building to be processed after the indictment was issued, Bullock was pacing back and forth and said to her, Ms. Rayborn, I'm sorry I got y'all down here. Outside the presence of the jury, defense counsel questioned her about this hearsay statement and moved to have it admitted under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3) as a statement against penal interest by an unavailable witness. The government objected. Rayborn argues that Bullock was basically [] saying he's sorry he got them down here, that it's his fault and goes to that point. Appellant's Br. at 16. The district court held that the statement was inadmissible. This ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Hilliard, 11 F.3d 618, 619 (6th Cir.1993). 18 Even if we were to hold that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to admit the statement, we are convinced that such error would be harmless. The harmless error standard calls for reversal when the appellate court lacks a fair assurance that the outcome of a trial was not affected by evidentiary error. We shall, therefore, reverse the lower court only if we are firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. McCombs v. Meijer, Inc., 395 F.3d 346, 358 (6th Cir.2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted). 19 First, there was substantial evidence presented at trial—in testimonial and documentary form—establishing Rayborn's guilt. And while it is true that the nature of Rayborn's defense was that he was ignorant and misinformed by his accountant, he had ample opportunity to present evidence in support of this defense. This evidence included testimony by Ms. Rayborn, and as the guilty verdict demonstrates, the jury did not find her testimony credible. Thus, it is quite likely that the jury would not have believed her in this instance either. Furthermore, the jury could have found that she had been kept in the dark, but that Rayborn himself had not been so misinformed. Such a finding would be supported by testimony that Rayborn had signed fraudulent documents, and evidence indicating that he was more deeply involved with the family finances than Ms. Rayborn (for example, the fact he paid off personal debts in order to secure both loans). Finally, Bullock's alleged statement is quite vague, and is by no means a slam dunk admission of guilt. The jury could have found that it was not necessarily any more exculpatory than the other evidence that Rayborn presented at trial. Based on our review of the trial record, we cannot say that we are firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. Id. at 358. Therefore, any error was harmless and does not warrant a new trial. 20