Opinion ID: 3179278
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Drume’s Statements

Text: On December 8, 1987, around 30 months after Sergeant Burchfield‘s murder, Drume wrote in a letter addressed to the Marin County Clerk that he had information about ―the murder of a sergeant‖ at San Quentin. In an interview with law enforcement personnel later that month, Drume said he was the BGF head of 43 security for Carson section when Sergeant Burchfield was murdered. Drume said that he, Woodard, and two other BGF members planned the murder and that he ―made the knife‖ that was used to stab Sergeant Burchfield. As part of his pretrial motion to sever his case, Masters indicated his intention to introduce Drume‘s statements at trial. As with Richardson‘s statements, the trial court doubted the reliability of Drume‘s statements, and denied Masters‘s motion to sever. At trial, Masters sought to introduce Drume‘s statements into evidence. As with Richardson‘s statements, the trial court excluded Drume‘s statements as inadmissible hearsay because they were unreliable; it also excluded them under Evidence Code section 352. The parties do not dispute Drume‘s unavailability at trial or that his statements were against his penal interest. For substantially the same reasons as apply to Richardson‘s statements, however, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Drume‘s statements lacked sufficient trustworthiness. Like Richardson, Drume could have been motivated to make the statements to curry favor with law enforcement, or to enhance his reputation among other prisoners. In addition, Drume had even more time than Richardson to glean information about the conspiracy before giving his version of events.