Opinion ID: 149229
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inconsistent Statements: Count One

Text: 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.