Opinion ID: 603523
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Mrs. Hall's statement.

Text: 14 Following her husband's arrest, Tammie Sue Bryant Hall was interviewed by Prosecutor McAfee. According to an Interview Summary, apparently prepared by McAfee, Mrs. Hall provided inculpatory information that, if admissible, would have devastated Barry Hall's defense. For example, the summary states that Mrs. Hall repeatedly witnessed Hall and others using cocaine and had found cocaine inside their car and house. The summary also details several conversations between Mrs. Hall and her husband in which they discussed his drug use and his belief that he would be indicted. 15 As we stated earlier, Mrs. Hall signed a pretrial affidavit asserting her privilege against being compelled to testify against her husband, and the district court reserved its ruling on whether Mrs. Hall could validly assert the privilege. 6 The government did not call Mrs. Hall as a witness. 16 Hall testified in his own defense. During his cross-examination, McAfee immediately began inquiring into the substance of Mrs. Hall's statement. 7 Significantly, it is apparent from the record and oral argument that McAfee held Mrs. Hall's statement in his hand and read from it while questioning Hall. 17 Q: Mr. Hall, isn't it true that your wife caught you using cocaine as early as 1987? 18 A: No, she didn't. 19 Q: In the kitchen, didn't she? 20 .... 21 Q: She caught you using cocaine on the kitchen table, and you kicked her out of the house? 22 Hall's counsel objected to all questions concerning Mrs. Hall as lacking a foundation, as being outside the scope of the direct, and because Mrs. Hall had not testified. Prosecutor McAfee then stated, in the jury's presence, I have a foundation for it. I have a three page statement from Ms. Hall. 23 The district court overruled Hall's objection and McAfee continued to question Hall about Mrs. Hall's statement: 24 Q: In fact, isn't it also true, Mr. Hall, that you even brought your wife with you for a cocaine deal[?] 25 .... 26 Q: In fact, after Debbie Greer got busted, you were so concerned about that and what Debbie Greer was going to say about her relationship with you that you shared that concern and concerns with your wife, Tammie Hall? 27 Hall's objections were overruled. McAfee then continued to ask Hall about other statements that he had made to his wife. McAfee then said, in the jury's presence: 28 Mr. Hall let me show you what's marked as Government's Exhibit 16, ... This is a summary of an interview with Mrs. Tammie Hall and ask if you'd read over that, please. 29 Hall's counsel then requested a bench conference. At this conference, the court asked, Well, you've already asked him about everything that's in that statement already, I guess, but what are you fixing to do with it? 30 There were numerous deficiencies with this cross-examination. We do not know, short of accepting McAfee's word on the matter, whether Mrs. Hall was ever interviewed. Even if a statement was given by Mrs. Hall, we have no knowledge of the conditions under which it was given or whether the summary of it was materially accurate. The summary is not signed or otherwise adopted by Mrs. Hall. It was inadmissible as hearsay thus violating Fed.R.Evid. 802, and perhaps, the Confrontation Clause as well, since Hall had no opportunity for cross-examination. See Goldsmith v. Witkowski, 981 F.2d 697 (4th Cir.1992) (reversing conviction on ground that prosecution introduced hearsay evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause). 31 Use of the statement also violated both Mr. and Mrs. Hall's marital privilege. 8 Mrs. Hall had asserted her privilege not to testify against her husband, and the government did not call her to the stand in order to test her assertion of the privilege. 9 Instead, to avoid risking an adverse ruling on this issue, the prosecutor simply identified the statement in front of the jury, and then read it in open court under the guise of impeachment. McAfee's conduct also violated Hall's privilege by divulging marital communications. 10 32 Protections against the use of privileged and inadmissible evidence would be of little benefit if the prosecutor were allowed, under the guise of artful cross-examination, to tell the jury the substance of inadmissible evidence. Goldsmith, 981 F.2d at 704 (reversal required when prosecution presented inadmissible evidence through the back door); United States v. Check, 582 F.2d 668, 683 (2d Cir.1978) (reversal based on prosecutor's transparent introduction of inadmissible hearsay through artful cross-examination, the government received the benefit of having, in effect, an additional witness against [the defendant] while simultaneously insulating [the witness] from cross-examination ...); see also United States v. Simtob, 901 F.2d 799, 805 (9th Cir.1990) (reversal required because [p]rosecutor's discussion of [prosecution witness's] remarks in relation to earlier statements which were not before the jury (and of which the jury could assume only the government was aware) could have implied that the government had certain knowledge whether the [witness] was in fact telling the truth.); United States v. Morlang, 531 F.2d 183, 190 (4th Cir.1975) (rejecting prosecution's attempt to call a witness solely in order to impeach through hearsay); United States v. Carroll, 678 F.2d 1208, 1209 (4th Cir.1982) (Defendant has a Fifth Amendment right not to be convicted except on the basis of evidence adduced against him). 33 This case presents an egregious example of artful cross-examination. McAfee repeatedly told the jury that he possessed a statement given by the defendant's wife. He then proceeded to read the statement to the jury under the guise of cross-examining Hall. In effect, the government gained extremely damaging inculpatory testimony that could not have been introduced into evidence. The government's use of Mrs. Hall's unauthenticated statement violated Fed.R.Evid. Rule 802 (Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules....), both Mr. and Mrs. Hall's spousal privileges, and introduced testimony of a witness who could not be cross-examined as required by the Confrontation Clause. 34