Opinion ID: 451965
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Challenges To The Admission of Steneman's Deposition Into Evidence

Text: 31 Sines argues that the district court's admission of Steneman's deposition into evidence violated both Rule 15 and section 3503, because the government failed to make a sufficient showing that Steneman was unavailable to testify at trial. Sines contends that the government was required to exhaust all possible means at its disposal to secure the attendance of Steneman at trial. He notes that although a subpoena was prepared for Steneman, it was never actually served because of information the government allegedly received through informal channels. The United States maintains that it was notified by Thai officials that the subpoena would not be honored, and therefore determined that service of the subpoena would be a meaningless gesture. 32 Under Rule 15, for Steneman's deposition to be admitted into evidence, the government was required to demonstrate that Steneman would be absent from Sines's trial and that the United States, as the proponent of his statement[,] ha[d] been unable to procure his attendance ... by process or other reasonable means. Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(e); Fed.R.Evid. 804(a)(5) (emphasis added). The prosecutor represented to the district court that after a series of contacts through various diplomatic channels, the Thai government had clearly indicated its unwillingness to permit Steneman to leave Thailand to testify. Although it would have been vastly preferable for the prosecution to submit affidavits precisely delineating the United States government's efforts to obtain Steneman's presence, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the government's attempts in this regard were sufficient to establish Steneman's unavailability for purposes of Rule 15. See United States v. Johnson, 735 F.2d 1200, 1202-03 (9th Cir.1984) (ruling that the prosecution [had] made all reasonable efforts to produce its witness, the United States ambassador to Italy, when it called the ambassador and was told that he was tied up in diplomatic matters of extreme sensitivity); Furlow v. United States, 644 F.2d at 767; United States v. Richardson, 588 F.2d at 1241. Therefore, the district properly admitted Steneman's deposition into evidence in Sines's case. 6 33