Opinion ID: 716393
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: exclusion of previously filed indictment

Text: 34 Cisneros-Silva argues that the district court erred by excluding the previously filed indictment from evidence. He contends that the previous indictment was a written admission by a party opponent under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2), and that the indictment was substantive evidence to support his primary theory of defense. 35 A district court's evidentiary rulings during trial are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Manning, 56 F.3d at 1196. An indictment is not admissible as evidence of the later indictment's infirmity. An indictment is not a pleading of the United States. Therefore, the prior indictment is certainly not an admission by a party opponent and is not admissible as evidence. The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the previously filed indictment. 36