Opinion ID: 149281
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Eaton’s Affidavit

Text: As additional evidence that various government agents, and particularly Forrester, worked to frame him for the murder, Beckett presented an affidavit from Norma Eaton, the prostitute who testified that she had seen Beckett running near the scene of the murder, stating that her trial testimony had been coached and coerced. The history of Eaton’s statements is somewhat complicated: after being interviewed by the police, she identified Beckett for a grand jury on September 30, 1996. She then testified at Beckett’s trial. On September 26, 2006, she was tracked down by Dion Howells, Beckett’s investigator, who witnessed her affidavit, which read: [Howells] Q. On 2-17-96 when interviewed by Det. S. Forrester what did the police ask you. - 17 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. [Eaton] A. They asked me did I see a murder on 3/2/96. I did not see anything however I did hear two gunshots and saw a light skinned Black male run past me, I stopped this male and asked him if he wanted a date to which male said “no” and I left the area. Q. Did the police come back and speak to you again. A. Yes, two days later approx 3/4/96. The police had pictures and showed them to me. The police kept pointing to one man while I was pointing to another male. The police showed me the one male they wanted me to identify while I kept pointing to the other male. Q. Did the police interview you after 3/4/96 A. Yes approx 2 days later the police came back took me outside to the police car and showed me a leather coat, hat and boots. I told them the man I saw had all black on. There was nothing particular about this clothing I could identify. Q. Did you give testimony to the grand jury on 9/30/96 A. Yes. Q. Did the police show you a photo prior to your testimony of the person the police wanted you to identify. A. Yes they showed me the same photo of a Black male which was not the photo I picked out. Q. Did the police point a Black male out to you prior to your testimony in court. A. Yes, the [sic] pointed out the male they wanted me to identify. Q. Did the police coerce your testimony A. Yes, they coached me along. Q. Did you have any criminal charges pending against you when the police interviewed you - 18 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. A. Yes. Q. Did the police coerce your testimony against Dale Beckett A. Yes, I had pending charges. Q. Did the police officers give you any help with your criminal charges A. Yes, I believe they helped me get out of some of [indecipherable] problems Q. Did the police offer or give you money. A. Yes, they gave me twenty dollars several times while this case was going on. Q. Do you have anything further to this statement. A. Yes, Dale Beckett is not the Dude I picked out. (R. 103, Attachment 10, Eaton Affidavit, at 1-3.) Howells also recorded (and had transcribed) his entire conversation with Eaton; that transcript suggests that Eaton, who at the time of the murder was apparently facing various drug and prostitution charges, was saying that she misidentified Beckett after the police promised to contact the judge in her case and state that she was cooperating. After Eaton gave this ex parte affidavit, Beckett tried to get her to state her allegations during a deposition. On January 10, 2007, Eaton gave a truncated and bizarre deposition, during which she cursed Beckett’s attorneys and alleged that Howells had forced her to say things and had misrepresented himself as an attorney. In part, the transcript of this deposition reads: Q. [Yelsky, Beckett’s attorney]: You were one of the witnesses in Dale Beckett’s murder case? A. [Eaton]: Possibility. - 19 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. Q. You were -- A. You keep saying, “you.” I have multiple personalities. You’ve got to explain who you’re talking to and who you’re not talking to. That’s the only way you’re going to get it. Q. Okay. Would you prefer I call you Mrs. Eaton? A. Call me what you wish. If she’s here, she’ll talk to you. If she ain’t, she won’t. Q. Okay, Ms. Eaton, you were one of the witnesses in Dale Beckett’s murder case. Am I correct? A. Yeah, I believe so. Q. And the night of the shooting or the murder, do you remember what night that was? A. I don’t even remember what today is. How am I going to remember that? Q. Do you have a poor memory, ma’am? A. I don’t have a memory at all. Q. Okay. Ma’am, the night of the shooting, did you actually see Dale Beckett around that neighborhood where you were at? A. I seen him run past me. That’s all I seen. Q. Did you see Dale Beckett? A. I believe so. Q. But on the other hand -- A. I can’t – I don’t know. You know, that who I seen him run past me. Now, whether he did it or didn’t do nothing, I don’t know. I - 20 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. don’t know nothing about that. That’s the guy I seen run past me that night. That’s all I can say. I don’t know nothing else. You can’t ask me nothing else because I don’t know nothing else. You can’t make me say something like that private investigator did. You know what I’m saying? Basically, I’m through with all this shit on everything, for real. Because you’re all irritating the fuck out of me right now. (R. 103, Attachment 9, Eaton Deposition, at 4-6.) Eaton then stormed out of the deposition room.4 Beckett tried several more times to depose Eaton, but after the court appointed an attorney to represent her, Eaton announced that she was exercising her Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to testify, both at the deposition and at any future trial. Like Williams’ affidavit, Eaton’s affidavit consists almost entirely of inadmissible hearsay. Clearly, Beckett is offering the affidavit in an attempt to prove that Forrester and other police officers coached and encouraged Eaton to lie when testifying that she had seen Beckett near the scene of the murder. Eaton’s statements are therefore not admissible at trial unless a hearsay exception or exemption applies. As a result of her invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege and stated difficulties remembering anything, Eaton is “unavailable” to testify within the meaning of the Federal Rules of Evidence. FED . R. EVID . 804(a)(1)-(2). The only applicable hearsay exception under which Eaton’s affidavit may be admitted is the same exception for statements against interest found in Rule 804(b)(3). As we did with Williams’ affidavit, we must therefore break down Eaton’s 4 We also note that by storming out during Yelsky’s questioning, and thus refusing to complete her deposition, Eaton denied the defendants their right of cross-examination. - 21 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. affidavit sentence by sentence and determine whether, in context, each declaration or remark is or is not self-inculpatory. Williamson, 512 U.S. at 600; Canan, 48 F.3d at 959-60. At trial, Eaton reportedly identified Beckett as the man she saw running through a field in the vicinity of the crime scene when the murder occurred. In her affidavit, however, Eaton states that Beckett “is not the Dude I picked out.” Taken in context, Eaton’s affidavit statement subjects Eaton to charges of perjury, and is therefore admissible under the statement against interest exception. Similarly, given the context that law enforcement officers already knew that Eaton had engaged in illegal prostitution, Eaton’s statement that she solicited the man she saw running through the field for a date is admissible. That said, however, everything else in Eaton’s affidavit – and particularly her claims that the police coerced her into mis-identifying Beckett – does nothing to inculpate Eaton. If true, those statements might demonstrate that the police acted inappropriately – but being coerced or threatened did not expose Eaton to civil or criminal liability. Accordingly, the remainder of Eaton’s affidavit is hearsay not subject to any exception. Beckett argues that Eaton’s affidavit, even if it constitutes otherwise inadmissible hearsay, should be admitted because the defendants, through wrongdoing, have forfeited the right to object on hearsay grounds. Specifically, Beckett claims that Eaton was “intimidated by the police” into not testifying, and that the police therefore procured Eaton’s unavailability. As part of their argument, Beckett’s attorneys repeatedly invoke the doctrine of “forfeiture by wrongdoing” and discuss the United States Constitution’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause – apparently not realizing that the Confrontation Clause applies only to “criminal prosecutions,” rather than civil § 1983 claims. U.S. CONST . Amend. VI. The doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, which has been codified as FED . - 22 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. R. EVID . 804(b)(6), exempts from the hearsay rule any “statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.” Although Rule 804(b)(6) was clearly designed with criminal cases in mind, and was intended to prevent defendants from profiting by murdering or harming witnesses, the language of the Rule is broad enough to apply to civil cases. The Supreme Court, moreover, has concluded that the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing applies to the government, as well as to criminal defendants. See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. ---, 128 S.Ct. 2678, 2678 (June 25, 2008). We have held that, in order for the doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing to apply and to render admissible what would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay: the proponent of the hearsay statement has the burden of persuasion of showing procurement [of unavailability] by a preponderance, but once evidence is produced that demonstrates good reason to believe the defendant has interfered with the witness, adverse inferences may be drawn from the failure of the defense to offer credible evidence to the contrary. Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193, 1202 (6th Cir. 1982). Subsequently, in Giles, 128 S. Ct. at 2683, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine applies only “when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying.” In other words, “the exception applies only if the defendant has in mind the particular purpose of making the witness unavailable.’” Id. at 2687. Therefore, the proponent of a hearsay statement invoking the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the party opposing admission of the hearsay statements engaged in conduct designed to procure the unavailability of the witness. Beckett cannot meet this burden. The only evidence Beckett offers to demonstrate that any of the defendants engaged in conduct designed to procure Eaton’s unavailability is: (1) the fact that - 23 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. Eaton did not, as Beckett apparently expected, testify at deposition that she had been encouraged to lie during Beckett’s murder trial; and (2) his allegation, stated in an affidavit, that various people, including Forrester, spoke with Eaton the morning Eaton was supposed to give the deposition – after Eaton had already informed Beckett’s attorneys that she was not going to testify. According to Beckett’s affidavit: I did personally observe Norma J. Eaton enter the library with 3 police detectives (the same people that she was suppose to be testifying against; they all gathered together and began to conversate. Detective Steve Forrester, the most culpable defendant in the above captioned case then entered the library. Detective Forrester, Norma J. Eaton, the (3) detectives, Mr. Burrell, and Mr. Fisk huddled together giving the appearance of constructing a gameplan. When Ms. Eaton entered the library with the detectives it was obvious from the look on her face that she’d been intimidated by the police once again into doing the exact same thing she’d done at the Plaintiffs murder trial. Just as I was mentioning to my attorneys of the importance of securing an injunction to protect Ms. Eaton, Ms. Eaton approaches the area where myself and my attorneys were and began frantically speaking as if she was being hunted by gamesmen (with the Toledo police detectives standing directly behind her) Norma J. Eaton began to accuse the Plantiffs investigator (Dion Howells) of misrepresenting himself (which the audio-tape of Ms. Eaton contradicts completely and absolutely) and retracting her confession of truth. She refused to do the video-taped deposition as she had agreed to do and was nervously adamant about not testifying. After disdainfully leaving the proceedings by exiting the conference room, Norma J. Eaton then left the library with the Police Detectives, the very same officers she was suppose to be testifying against. (R. 78 # 2, Becket 1/12/2007 Affidavit.) Beckett’s beliefs regarding the meaning of Eaton’s expression upon entering the room and the fact that Eaton, who went on to accuse Beckett’s private investigator of making her say something, chose to speak with Forrester and various other police officers, simply do not show by a preponderance of the evidence that Forrester or anyone else engaged in conduct designed to procure Eaton’s unavailability or to prevent Eaton from testifying. - 24 - No. 09-3719 Dale Beckett v. Jack Ford et al. As Eaton’s affidavit consists almost entirely of inadmissible hearsay, and as Beckett cannot meet the burden of demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Forrester, Anderson, or anyone else in any way procured Eaton’s unavailability, we find that the district court in ruling on summary judgment was required to disregard everything in Eaton’s affidavit other than Eaton’s statement that she solicited the man she saw near the murder for a date and the statement that Beckett, against whom she testified, “is not the Dude I picked out.”