Opinion ID: 626993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Title III Evidence

Text: The Title III recording of the conversation between Berrios and Moore formed the cornerstone of the prosecution's case against Rodriguez, Cruz, and Moore, and these three defendants challenge admission of the recording on several grounds. Rodriguez and Cruz challenge the recording as a violation of their rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and in the alternative, as inadmissible hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Moore contends that the Title III application was facially deficient, and therefore the recording should have been suppressed. Due to the confusion exhibited by the parties as to the proper scope of the Confrontation Clause, we will first clarify our Confrontation Clause jurisprudence with regards to testimonial versus nontestimonial statements, before proceeding to the admissibility of the recording against the three defendants. We exercise plenary review over Confrontation Clause challenges, United States v. Lore, 430 F.3d 190, 208 (3d Cir. 2005), but review a nonconstitutional challenge to the admission of hearsay for abuse of discretion. United States v. Riley, 621 F.3d 312, 337 (3d Cir.2010).
The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause provides that [i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const. amend. VI. Until recently, the scope of the Confrontation Clause had been governed by the indicia of reliability test laid out by Justice Blackmun in Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 65-66, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980). Under Roberts, an absent witness's hearsay statement could be introduced against a criminal defendant only if the witness was unavailable at trial and the statement bore certain indicia of reliability, either by fall[ing] within a firmly rooted hearsay exception or by showing particularized guarantees of trustworthiness. Id. at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), however, the Supreme Court observed that, at its core, the Confrontation Clause is concerned with testimonial hearsay. Abrogating Roberts, the Crawford Court adopted a per se rule that where testimonial hearsay is concerned and the declarant is absent from trial, the Confrontation Clause requires that the witness be unavailable and that the defendant have had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id. at 59, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. In subsequent decisions, the Court overruled Roberts in its entirety, holding without qualification that the Confrontation Clause protects the defendant only against the introduction of testimonial hearsay statements, and that admissibility of nontestimonial hearsay is governed solely by the rules of evidence. See Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 823-24, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (holding that, under Crawford, the Confrontation Clause protects only against admission of testimonial hearsay, because a limitation so clearly reflected in the text of the constitutional provision must fairly be said to mark out not merely its `core,' but its perimeter); Michigan v. Bryant, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1143, 1152-53, 179 L.Ed.2d 93 (2011) (confirming that Crawford limits the reach of the Confrontation Clause to testimonial statements); Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 419-20, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007) (Under Crawford, ... the Confrontation Clause has no application to [out-of-court nontestimonial statements] and therefore permits their admission even if they lack indicia of reliability.). We initially interpreted the Crawford decision to overrule Roberts only insofar as testimonial statements were concerned, but continued to apply the Confrontation Clause to nontestimonial hearsay through the Roberts indicia of reliability test. See United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 179 (3d Cir. 2005) ([U]nless a particular hearsay statement qualifies as `testimonial,' Crawford is inapplicable and Roberts still controls.). To date, we have yet to circumscribe the Confrontation Clause to its core concern with testimonial hearsay, but have rather maintained that nontestimonial statements do not violate the Confrontation Clause and are admissible as long as `they are subject to a firmly rooted hearsay exception or bear an adequate indicia of reliability.' United States v. Jimenez, 513 F.3d 62, 77 (3d Cir.2008) (quoting Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 103, 134 (3d Cir.2007)). To avoid needless confusion, we now expressly follow the Supreme Court's Confrontation Clause jurisprudence as laid out in the trilogy of Davis, Whorton, and Bryant : where nontestimonial hearsay is concerned, the Confrontation Clause has no role to play in determining the admissibility of a declarant's statement. [1] Accordingly, the indicia of reliability test of Roberts is no longer an appropriate vehicle for challenging admission of nontestimonial hearsay. [2] Thus, our Confrontation Clause inquiry is twofold. First, a court should determine whether the contested statement [3] by an out-of-court declarant qualifies as testimonial under Davis and its progeny. Second, the court should apply the appropriate safeguard. If the absent witness's statement is testimonial, then the Confrontation Clause requires unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. If the statement is nontestimonial, then admissibility is governed solely by the rules of evidence. Davis, 547 U.S. at 823, 126 S.Ct. 2266. Applying this two-part test to the Title III recording at issue here, we have little hesitation in concluding that the recorded conversation was not testimonial, and thus not subject to Confrontation Clause scrutiny. Although we lack an authoritative definition of testimonial, in Hendricks, 395 F.3d at 180-81, we addressed the admissibility of similar Title III recordings of conversations between various nontestifying defendants and third parties. After comparing these recordings to the examples which the Supreme Court stated were definitively testimonial, such as prior testimony at a preliminary hearing, before a grand jury, or at a former trial, and police interrogations, we reasoned that a surreptitious Title III recording neither qualified as  ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent, nor formalized extrajudicial statements. Id. Cognizant that a witness `who makes a formal statement to government officers bears testimony in a sense that a person who makes a casual remark to an acquaintance does not,' id. (quoting Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354), we concluded that the surreptitiously monitored conversations and statements contained in the Title III recordings [we]re not `testimonial' for purposes of Crawford.  [4] Id. It is likewise clear that, in the present case, the contested statements bear none of the characteristics exhibited by testimonial statements. There is no indication that Berrios and Moore held the objective of incriminating any of the defendants at trial when their prison yard conversation was recorded; there is no indication that they were aware of being overheard; and there is no indication that their conversation consisted of anything but casual remark[s] to an acquaintance. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Nor do we think that a surreptitious recording falls within the category of abuses which, historically, the Framers were concerned about eradicating from the government's investigative practices. See id. Consequently, we reject any suggestion that, in this circumstance, the Title III recording was testimonial, [5] and therefore that the Confrontation Clause affords protection against the introduction of such evidence at the defendants' trial. Our conclusion that the contested statements were nontestimonial under Davis compels us to reject the challenges levied by Rodriguez and Cruz under Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). In Bruton, the Court held that the Confrontation Clause bars the use of the confession of a nontestifying criminal defendant in a joint trial to the extent that it directly inculpates a co-defendant, though it might be otherwise admissible against the confessing defendant. Id. at 126, 88 S.Ct. 1620. We have interpreted Bruton expansively, holding that it applies not only to custodial confessions, but also when the statements of the non-testifying co-defendant were made to family or friends, and are otherwise inadmissible hearsay. United States v. Mussare, 405 F.3d 161, 168 (3d Cir.2005) (citing Monachelli v. Graterford, 884 F.2d 749, 753 (3d Cir.1989), and United States v. Ruff, 717 F.2d 855, 857-58 (3d Cir.1983)). However, because Bruton is no more than a by-product of the Confrontation Clause, the Court's holdings in Davis and Crawford likewise limit Bruton to testimonial statements. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 605 F.3d 985, 1017 (D.C.Cir.2010) (holding that alleged Bruton claim did not violate the Confrontation Clause because the statements were not testimonial). Any protection provided by Bruton is therefore only afforded to the same extent as the Confrontation Clause, which requires that the challenged statement qualify as testimonial. To the extent that we have held otherwise, we no longer follow those holdings. See Monachelli, 884 F.2d at 753 (holding that Bruton applies to statements made in a non-custodial setting to family and friends); Ruff, 717 F.2d at 857-58 (same). And because, as discussed above, we have found the Title III recordings not to constitute testimonial hearsay, Bruton provides no solace for Rodriguez or Cruz.
Following the two-step framework articulated above, having determined that the challenged recording is nontestimonial and therefore that the Confrontation Clause challenges are not viable, we move next to the admissibility of the Title III recording against Cruz and Rodriguez under the Federal Rules of Evidence. We may affirm the District Court on any ground supported by the record. Mussare, 405 F.3d at 168. Rodriguez contends that the Title III recording was inadmissible hearsay as to him, but we agree with the government that the recording was admissible under Rule 804(b)(3) as a statement against penal interest. Although we are sensitive to the possibility that self-serving incriminating statements uttered by a non-testifying co-defendant may be inherently untrustworthy, [w]here statements inculpate both the speaker and the defendant challenging their admission, the statements are admissible so long as they were `self-inculpatory' and not simply self-serving attempts to deflect criminal liability. Id. at 168 (quoting United States v. Moses, 148 F.3d 277, 281 (3d Cir.1998)). In Mussare, we considered the admission of similar braggadocio by a non-testifying codefendant, who had boasted to a witness that he and the defendant had performed the illegal acts underlying the criminal charges. Id. We found that because the co-defendant did not attempt to deflect liability, but rather took credit for it, the statements were not inadmissible hearsay. Id. [6] Mussare squarely governs here. In the Title III recording, Berrios and Moore unequivocally incriminate themselves in the carjackings and the Wendy's murder. Rather than attempting to deflect liability to Rodriguez, they take full credit for the Wendy's murder, bragging about shooting the security guard, and mentioning Rodriguez only to complain that he crashed the getaway car. In no way was the recorded conversation self-serving, and therefore we will uphold the District Court's ruling as to its admissibility against Rodriguez. Cruz's challenge is equally straightforward because Berrios and Moore never blame Cruz for any criminal conduct, or even mention him by name. Moreover, Moore's threat to kill a man who worked with his girlfriend, and who was evidently talking to the police, did not clearly refer to Cruz, as Cruz himself concedes (and the government never attempted to argue that it did). Thus, Cruz cannot contend that Berrios or Moore attempted to deflect any criminal liability in his direction during their conversation. See Mussare, 405 F.3d at 168. Rather, the challenged statements are entirely self-inculpatory, and consequently admissible against Cruz under Rule 804(b)(3). See id.
Moore offers a curious argument that the Title III application submitted by the investigating prosecutor was facially deficient because the prosecutor was not admitted to practice in Puerto Rico, the jurisdiction where the warrant was obtained. We find that this argument was waived under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12. [U]nder Rule 12, a suppression argument raised for the first time on appeal is waived ( i.e., completely barred) absent good cause, including when the defendant filed a suppression motion but failed to include the specific issues raised on appeal. United States v. Rose, 538 F.3d 175, 177, 182 (3d Cir.2008). Rose concerned evidence which the defendant sought to suppress under the Fourth Amendment on the grounds that the warrant was facially deficient, id. at 176-77, but in light of the expansive language of Rule 12(b)(3)(C), which applies broadly to a motion to suppress, we find it equally appropriate to apply this waiver rule in the Title III context. See, e.g., United States v. Kincaide, 145 F.3d 771, 778 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that failure to seek suppression of Title III wiretap evidence waived claim on appeal under Rule 12); United States v. Torres, 908 F.2d 1417, 1424 (9th Cir.1990) (same). Thus, although Moore submitted a pre-trial motion to suppress the wiretap evidence, that motion preserved only those arguments which he specifically raised, and he did not raise this purported deficiency. Nor can Moore offer any argument as to why he was unable to make a proper motion, or contend that he was unaware of this potential basis for suppression, as would warrant a waiver exception under 18 U.S.C. § 2518(10)(a): his co-defendant, Berrios, moved for a new trial based on the purported deficiency in the Title III application, which Moore did not join. The argument was accordingly waived under Rule 12, and because the plain error doctrine is inapplicable, see Rose, 538 F.3d at 177, we do not reach its dubious merits.