Opinion ID: 4470975
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: “Climate of Fear” Evidence

Text: Both Appellants challenge the admissibility of the “climate of fear” evidence, although they rely on different theories to do so. This evidence was admitted to establish the witnesses’ fearful state of mind under Rules 801(c)(1) and 803(3) (and not for the truth of the matters asserted). However, Mykhaylo contends that this evidence does not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement. See Fed. R. Evid. 602. Churuk argues that the District Court erroneously permitted the witnesses to testify to repetitive and inflammatory statements regarding the Botsvynyuks’ various crimes, making it impossible for the jury to consider such evidence for its ostensibly limited purpose. In addition to attacking the District Court’s jury instruction as too perfunctory, Churuk asserts that, “if its goal was truly to establish the existence of a climate of fear, the 9 Like M.S.1, I.S. was raped by Mykhaylo. 12 government possessed a clear evidentiary alternative based upon the witnesses’ alleged firsthand experience” and that the “ostensible purpose of the out-of-court accusations was belied by the government’s own evidence” because all of the witnesses eventually left the Botsvynyuks (and continued to live and work illegally in the United States). (Churuk’s Brief at 51 (relying on Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997)).) Nevertheless, it appears undisputed that (as Mykhaylo puts it) “evidence along these lines may be admissible for a purpose of establishing the witness’s state of mind, as opposed to for the truth of the matter asserted” (Mykhaylo’s Brief at 60). Furthermore, the prosecution “may fairly seek to place its evidence before the jurors, as much to tell a story of guiltiness as to support an inference of guilt, to convince the jurors that a guilty verdict would be morally reasonable as much as to point to the discrete elements of a defendant’s legal fault.” Old Chief, 519 U.S. at 188 (citing United States v. Gilliam, 994 F.2d 97, 100-02 (2d Cir. 1993)). The District Court also instructed the jury more than once that this sort of testimony could not be considered for its truth (e.g., “that the workers were abused” (A1274)) and instead could only be considered for the limited purpose of assessing the witnesses’ state of mind (and why they took or failed to take certain actions). In fact, counsel for both Churuk and Mykhaylo expressed their satisfaction with the specific instruction that Churuk now attacks on appeal, and they declined the District Court’s invitation to give any additional cautionary instructions in the final charge.