Opinion ID: 2621923
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony from the First Trial

Text: ¶77 Low did not testify in the second trial, but the district court permitted the State, over Low's objection, to read to the jury his testimony from the first trial. Low argues that the district court erred by permitting the State to present his testimony from the first trial over his objection. ¶78 Generally, a defendant's testimony at a former trial is admissible in evidence against him in later proceedings. Harrison v. United States, 392 U.S. 219, 222 (1968). However, when a defendant is compelled to testify as a result of evidence that is illegally obtained and improperly admitted, the defendant's testimony is inadmissible in a later trial. Id. at 222-24. Accordingly, if a defendant chooses not to testify at retrial and the prosecution seeks to admit the defendant's testimony from the first trial, the court must determine why the defendant testified in the first trial. See id. at 223 (The question is not whether the [defendant] made a knowing decision to testify, but why.). The burden is on the prosecution to show that [the government's] illegal action did not induce [the defendant's] testimony. Id. at 225; see also United States v. Pelullo, 105 F.3d 117, 125 (3d Cir. 1997) (The burden of proving that the defendant would have testified had the government not committed the violation lies with the government.). ¶79 In this case, the district court in the second trial acted under the assumption that Low's custodial statements had been legally obtained and properly admitted in the first trial. As a result, when deciding whether to allow the State to introduce Low's testimony from the first trial, the court took no evidence and made no findings regarding whether Low had been compelled to testify in the first trial as a result of the improper admission of his custodial statements. Our holding that Low's custodial statements were illegally obtained and improperly admitted may require the district court to make these determinations on remand. If Low chooses not to testify at retrial and the State asks for the admission of Low's testimony from the first trial, the district court will need to determine whether the erroneous admission of Low's custodial statements compelled him to testify in the first trial. If the State carries its burden in showing that Low was not compelled to testify due to the admission of the custodial statements, the court may admit Low's prior testimony. If, however, the State does not carry its burden, Low's prior testimony must be excluded.