Opinion ID: 536025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a dead man's tale

Text: 9 Smoot, a cooperating government witness, had been placed in the witness protection program and testified at the trial of Zannino's codefendants. On that occasion, he was vigorously cross-examined by three different defense counsel. He died prior to appellant's trial. Appellant mounts a two-pronged challenge to the judge's ruling that Smoot's earlier testimony could be introduced. 10
11 Zannino first contends that reading Smoot's previous testimony to his jury violated the Confrontation Clause, U.S. Const. Amend. VI. To be sure, the Constitution prohibits the random admission into evidence of an unavailable declarant's hearsay statements. Yet, we know on the best authority that such out-of-court statements may nonetheless be admitted at a criminal trial in a variety of circumstances. See, e.g., Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 183-84, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2782-83, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (coconspirator statements); Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 88-89, 91 S.Ct. 210, 219-20, 27 L.Ed.2d 213 (1970) (statement against penal interest); see also United States v. Seeley, 892 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. Fields, 871 F.2d 188, 192-93 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 369, 107 L.Ed.2d 355 (1989); United States v. Dunn, 758 F.2d 30, 39 (1st Cir.1985). 12 The touchstone is trustworthiness. When a declarant's unavailability has been shown, the Confrontation Clause may be satisfied if the declaration bears adequate indicia of reliability. Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 2539, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). Put in constitutional context, the mission of the Confrontation Clause is to advance a practical concern for the accuracy of the truth-determining process in criminal trials by assuring that 'the trier of fact [has] a satisfactory basis for evaluating the truth of the prior statement' . Dutton, 400 U.S. at 89, 91 S.Ct. at 220 (quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 161, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1936, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970)). Thus, the requirements of the Confrontation Clause regarding the admission of hearsay evidence are met whenever the evidence falls within a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay principle. See Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 182-83, 107 S.Ct. at 2782-83; Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539. As we recently wrote, to the extent that a traditional hearsay exception has sufficiently long and sturdy roots, a determination that the exception applies obviates the need for a separate assessment of the indicia of reliability which may or may not attend the evidence. Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1205 (1st Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S.Ct. 1297, 99 L.Ed.2d 506 (1988). 13 While a firmly rooted hearsay exception doubtless exists for former testimony given by a declarant who dies, or becomes unavailable, before the trial at issue, see Mancusi v. Stubbs, 408 U.S. 204, 216, 92 S.Ct. 2308, 2314, 33 L.Ed.2d 293 (1972); California v. Green, 399 U.S. at 165-66, 90 S.Ct. at 1938-39, that exception is usually thought to hinge on defendant's counsel having had complete and adequate opportunity to cross-examine on the earlier occasion. Green, 399 U.S. at 166, 90 S.Ct. at 1939. Here, Zannino's trial had been severed and his counsel, therefore, had no chance to cross-question Smoot when the main racketeering trial occurred. We therefore assume, as appellant urges, but do not decide, that no such exception applies. 14 The presence of such a categorical exception is not, however, a sine qua non to admissibility, but merely a way of easing the introduction of an unavailable declarant's statements. Where, as here, no such exception is claimed, the court may still look at the totality of the circumstances to see if adequate indicia of reliability attend the evidence. See Bourjaily, 483 U.S. at 179, 107 S.Ct. at 2781; Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539; Dutton, 400 U.S. at 89, 91 S.Ct. at 219; Dunn, 758 F.2d at 39. To that end, we independently examine the circumstances surrounding Smoot's testimony in order to ascertain whether it passes sixth amendment muster. 15 Before embarking upon this voyage, we first address, and reject, appellant's asseveration that, absent the catharsis of cross-examination, an unavailable declarant's earlier testimony can never be reliable enough to allay constitutional concerns. While the point seems to be an open one in this circuit, our sister circuits have uniformly admitted uncrossexamined grand jury testimony into evidence at a subsequent trial where the declarant is no longer available and the requisite indicia of reliability exist. See, e.g., United States v. Guinan, 836 F.2d 350, 358 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1218, 108 S.Ct. 2871, 101 L.Ed.2d 907 (1988); United States v. Marchini, 797 F.2d 759, 764-65 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1085, 107 S.Ct. 1288, 94 L.Ed.2d 145 (1987); United States v. Walker, 696 F.2d 277, 280-81 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891, 104 S.Ct. 234, 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); United States v. Barlow, 693 F.2d 954, 963-65 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945, 103 S.Ct. 2124, 77 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1983); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1355-60 (8th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977). Although the practice seems impeccable, we need not go quite so far today. 16 In this case, the reliability index is higher. Before the grand jury, testimony is not cross-examined at all; here, though Zannino's counsel never had an opportunity to question Smoot, the declarant was vetted at the earlier trial by defense attorneys who shared appellant's interest in denigrating Smoot's credibility. The case before us is, therefore, a much stronger one for admissibility: the functional equivalent of cross-examination by the defendant was present here, bolstering the inherent reliability of the testimony. See Barker v. Morris, 761 F.2d 1396, 1402-03 (9th Cir.1985) (approving admission of testimony of deceased witness given at preliminary hearing and used at trial against defendant who was not represented at the preliminary hearing), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1063, 106 S.Ct. 814, 88 L.Ed.2d 788 (1986). Thus, Smoot's sworn statements at the Angiulos' trial, as opposed to, say, grand jury testimony, offered a particularized guarantee[ ] of trustworthiness. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. at 2539. 17 We rule that the absence of cross-examination on appellant's behalf does not automatically require rejection of the former testimony of an unavailable declarant in a criminal case. Cross-examination, while it remains an important method of testing for the truth, is not the exclusive method by which the imprimatur of reliability can be conferred upon hearsay evidence. We do not believe it to be constitutionally required as a condition to the introduction of former testimony. 18 We now move to other indicia of reliability. Having carefully reviewed the testimony and the texture of the two trials, we agree with the district court that Smoot's former testimony contained ample trappings of dependability. The testimony was given under oath. It was not implausible. It was solidly corroborated: to cite but a few examples, Francesco and Nicolo Angiulo were overheard discussing the $14,000 that Smoot owed to Zannino; subsequently, Zannino and Angiulo were heard debating what procedure might be appropriate were Smoot to default; and, on a later tape, a group of persons (including Zannino, Angiulo, and Isabella) rehashed the status of Smoot's debt and the anticipated arrangements for repayment. Such strong corroboration obviously enhances the testimony's reliability. See, e.g., United States v. Workman, 860 F.2d 140, 144-46 (4th Cir.1988), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1529, 103 L.Ed.2d 834 (1989); Guinan, 836 F.2d at 356-58; Marchini, 797 F.2d at 764; Barker, 761 F.2d at 1402. It is likewise relevant that Smoot testified about matters within his personal knowledge, see, e.g., Marchini, 797 F.2d at 765; that he appeared without the protection of immunity, see, e.g., Guinan, 836 F.2d at 358; and that no significant extrinsic evidence impeached his version of events. 19 There is no need to paint the lily. Smoot's former testimony, though not subject to cross-examination on appellant's behalf, bore such staunch hallmarks of reliability that its admission was completely compatible with the guarantees of the sixth amendment. 20
21 Our ruling that there was no constitutional bar to use of this evidence does not end our inquiry into it. In a criminal trial, it is never enough that certain evidence is not prohibited; the proponent must be able to show, affirmatively, that it is permitted. In this case, the nonconstitutional dispute as to admissibility focuses on Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5). The rule provides that statements made by an unavailable declarant--and few declarants are more unavailable than dead men--may nonetheless be introduced if they are accompanied by circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness and if the court determines that: 22 (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. 23 Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5). We review the district court's application of the rule under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See United States v. Rodriguez, 706 F.2d 31, 41 (2d Cir.1983); Carlson, 547 F.2d at 1354-55. Applying this yardstick, we find that the court acted within its discretion in deciding that Smoot's testimony satisfied the rule's requirements. 24 As to circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, nothing need be said. We have already found that the statements were accompanied by meaningful indicia of reliability. See supra Part II(A). In this instance, those findings are dispositive of the guarantees of trustworthiness prong. Whether or not the two standards are always the same is a question we need not answer. 25 Turning to the rule's remaining requirements, we believe that the evidence's materiality is obvious. The record plainly indicates that Angiulo headed a loansharking business which involved Zannino, Donato Angiulo, and others, and that these individuals acted together to collect the $14,000 debt. The declarant's former testimony dealt with matters such as the circumstances surrounding the extension of credit, its terms and payment history, and the borrower's understanding that physical harm might result from nonpayment. The testimony was painfully material. It was also highly probative. Smoot had personal knowledge of the matters at issue, unique in some respects. He alone could recount his understanding of the foreseen consequences of default. With Smoot dead, his personal knowledge could best be tapped by resort to his earlier testimony. However heroic the efforts that it might undertake, the government could not be expected to procure evidence with a greater, or equivalent, probative worth. The absence of cross-examination was not fatal; nothing on the face of the rule, or in its spirit, prohibits the admission of previous testimony untested by cross-examination. 6 26 A dispassionate appraisal of the circumstances convinces us, as it did the lower court, that allowing the jury to hear Smoot's former testimony was consonant with both the interests of justice and the Federal Rules' general purposes. In our estimation, the panoply of factors present in this case fully satisfied the strictures of Rule 804(b)(5). See, e.g., Marchini, 797 F.2d at 764-65; Barlow, 693 F.2d at 961-62; United States v. Boulahanis, 677 F.2d 586, 588-89 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1016, 103 S.Ct. 375, 74 L.Ed.2d 509 (1982); United States v. Garner, 574 F.2d 1141, 1144-46 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 333, 58 L.Ed.2d 333 (1978); United States v. Ward, 552 F.2d 1080, 1082-83 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 850, 98 S.Ct. 161, 54 L.Ed.2d 119 (1977). We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's application of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(5) or in its admission of the challenged testimony.