Opinion ID: 149229
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Irreconcilably Contradictory Statements

Text: Mr. Hasan first argues that his convictions on Counts One and Two are not supported by sufficient evidence because the statements forming the basis for these counts are not irreconcilably contradictory. Because Mr. Hasan did not raise these challenges before the district court, we review his claims only for plain error. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that Mr. Hasan cannot establish clear or obvious error, and we reject his claims. Although we have not opined extensively on what is required to meet the irreconcilably contradictory (or necessarily false) requirement of § 1623(c), one of our sister circuits has sensibly stated that a conviction may only be sustained where the variance between the defendant's two statements extends beyond mere vagueness, uncertainty, or equivocality. Even though two declarations may differ from one another, the § 1623(c) standard is not met unless, taking them in context, they are so different that if one is true there is no way that the other can also be true. United States v. Flowers, 813 F.2d 1320, 1324 (4th Cir.1987). We adopt this standard here. See United States v. McAfee, 8 F.3d 1010, 1014-15 (5th Cir.1993) (adopting Flowers standard); United States v. Porter, 994 F.2d 470, 473 (8th Cir.1993) (same).
Count One involves inconsistent statements made by Mr. Hasan concerning when and how his brothers were killed in Somalia. At the April 2005 hearing, as the indictment charges, the following exchange occurred: Q. Okay. What were the other reasons that you left your country? A. The war that was going around and nobody can stay there and they took our house. They'reI mean, they took it and leave there. And my brother got killed there and all my family ran away. Q. What's the name of your brother that had been killed? A. Sadad. Sadad. Q. How do you spell his name? A. S-A-D, I think, A-D. Q. S-A-D A. A-D or A-T. Sadad. Q. And how long before 1997 when you filled out this form had your brother been killed? A. It was aroundas I remember, it was '92, '93. Q. Okay. And who killed him? A. One of those who shot him, the Somalian people, the one that was making war in the country. Aplt. Addendum of Exs., Ex. 6, at 10 (Grand Jury Tr., dated Apr. 5, 2005). At the November 2005 grand jury appearance, as the indictment avers, the following exchange occurred: Q. What's the name of your brother that had been killed? A. Sadad. Q. What's the name of your brother that was killed in the car wreck? A. That'sthat's Sadad. That's my brother Sadad and the other is Mohammed. Q. The one that got shot. And what year did he get shot? A. 1996. Id., Ex. 7, at 26 (Grand Jury Tr., dated Nov. 7, 2005). The government's theory at trial was that these statements were irreconcilably contradictory because Mr. Hasan's brother Sadad could not have been shot to death and killed in a car wreck. Mr. Hasan now contends that rather than being inconsistent these statements only indicate that he was confused. He points in particular to his response, That'sthat's Sadad. That's my brother Sadad and the other is Mohammed. According to Mr. Hasan, there is ambiguity in the words that and the other, and the prosecutor should have clarified who Mr. Hasan was referring to. Aplt. Br. at 18-20. Instead of undertaking the easy fix and asking who was shot and who was killed in a car wreck, id. at 19, Mr. Hasan contends that the prosecutor preyed on his confusion, producing nothing but doubt about who was shot and who was killed in a wreck, id. at 20. As a result, [n]o reasonable juror could have found the accounts irreconcilably incompatible. Id. at 20. Although we agree with Mr. Hasan that there is some confusion in his responses, he has not established clear or obvious error. In particular, we do not believe that the district court would have committed such error in finding that, in the full context of Mr. Hasan's testimony, a reasonable jury could conclude: (1) in his April appearance, Mr. Hasan meant it when he said that his brother Sadad was shot to death; and (2) in his November appearance, Mr. Hasan meant it when he said that his brother Sadad was killed in a car wreck. These two factual statements cannot simultaneously be true. And although the prosecutor could have done more to clarify, the district court would not have clearly or obviously erred in concluding that a reasonable jury could find that the questions were not the cause of Mr. Hasan's inconsistent answers here. Cf. United States v. Farmer, 137 F.3d 1265, 1269 (10th Cir.1998) ([W]here a prosecutor's question is only `arguably ambiguous,' a defendant's understanding of the question is for the jury to resolve in the first instance.). Thus, we do not detect plain error, and we must reject Mr. Hasan's sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to Count One.
Count Two involves inconsistent statements made by Mr. Hasan concerning harms inflicted upon his sister. As the indictment alleges, the following exchange occurred at the April 2005 grand jury appearance: Q. Did anyone in Somalia do things to you that hurt you physically? A. Yeah. Q. What did they do to you? A. Killing my brother, shot my father, try raping my sister. Aplt. Addendum of Exs., Ex. 6, at 20-21. At the November 2005 grand jury appearance, as the indictment avers, the following exchange took place: Q. Did anything happen to your sister in Somalia? A. No, sheshe wasshe moved from Somalia a long time ago. She wasshe was in Canada. Q. Okay. Butbut when she was in Somalia, did anybody try to do hurt her? A. I don't remember because I was staying home always. They always keep me at home. Id., Ex. 7, at 32. The government's theory at trial was that these statements were irreconcilably inconsistent because it cannot be true that his sister was the victim of an attempted rape and that she was not the victim of an attempted rape. Mr. Hasan now argues to the contrary that no reasonable jury could have found an irreconcilable contradiction in these statements. First, he contends, the transcript indicates that he was confused by the November question, Did anything happen to your sister in Somalia? Aplt. Br. at 21. He argues that his complete answer confirms that he thought he was being asked if his sister was still in Somalianot whether she had suffered any violence while there. Id. When the prosecutor did clarify that he was asking about harm to his sister, Mr. Hasan responded: I don't remember. Thus, Mr. Hasan insists that the statements cannot be irreconcilably contradictory because [i]t is at once logically possible that the attempted rape occurred, and that the Defendant did not recall it in his November testimony. Id. at 22. We understand the logic of Mr. Hasan's argument, but he cannot establish clear or obvious error on this issue. Mr. Hasan is correct that his November 2005 statement, I don't remember, is not in itself irreconcilably contradictory with his earlier statement that someone tried to rape his sister. However, the jury had before it Mr. Hasan's complete November grand jury testimony, and it could permissibly reach conclusions concerning the import of his charged statements by viewing them in the context of his other testimony. In particular, immediately following the statements noted above, the following exchange took place between the prosecutor and Mr. Hasan: Q. You don't remember? A. No. Q. That's your answer? A. Yeah. Q. Do you remember having been interviewed here in the Grand Jury on April 5th of 2005, and having said in answer to the question, What did they do to you, you said, Killing my brother, shot my father, try raping my sister. Is that something that you would forget? A. It wasn't my sister, it was my cousin. Q. All right. But you said sister, didn't you? A. I didn't. Q. Do you want to see the transcript? A. I don't remember. I said sister, I said cousin that they raped her because my sister was in Canada a long time. Q. Killing my brother, shot my father, try raping my sister. That's what it says; right? A. Yeah, that was what it says, but Q. Now, do you think our transcriptionist here didn't understand the difference between sister and cousin? A. I don't know, but it was my cousin who trying to get raped because my sister was in Canada a long time ago. Aplt. Addendum of Exs., Ex. 7, at 32-33 (emphasis added). This additional testimony could have led a reasonable jury to view Mr. Hasan's statement, I don't remember, as charged in the indictment, in a different light. In particular, in this testimony, Mr. Hasan pairs the exact same statement, I don't rememberand later a somewhat similar statement, I don't knowwith information concerning an alleged attempted rape involving his cousin and not his sister, which arguably could have led a reasonable jury to conclude that Mr. Hasan actually did remember whether his sister was subjected to an attempted rape, and that Mr. Hasan's testimony at that time was that it did not happen. More to the point, the district court would not have clearly or obviously erred in finding that, given this statement concerning Mr. Hasan's cousin, a reasonable jury could have determined that Mr. Hasan remembered a single incident of an attempted rape of a female family member, and that this incident involved his cousin and not his sister. Put another way, the district court would not have clearly or obviously erred in concluding that a reasonable jury could have found that the true import of Mr. Hasan's November 2005 testimony, as alleged in the indictment, was that there was no attempted rape of his sister. Therefore, the district court would not have clearly or obviously erred in concluding that a reasonable jury could find that: (1) in his April appearance, Mr. Hasan meant it when he said that his sister was the victim of an attempted rape; and (2) in his November grand jury appearance, Mr. Hasan meant it when he said that his sister was not the victim of an attempted rape. These two factual statements cannot at once be true. Thus, we do not detect plain error, and we must reject Mr. Hasan's sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge to Count Two.