Opinion ID: 2967475
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Bollin's Grand Jury Testimony

Text: Bollin contends that the district court abused its discretion when it allowed the Government to present a redacted version of his grand jury testimony but refused to allow him to present the omitted portions under the rule of completeness or the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule. We find no abuse of discretion. 23
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1) provides an exception to the hearsay rule for the former testimony of a declarant where the declarant is unavailable as a witness.16 16 A declarant is unavailable when the declarant is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement. Fed. R. Evid. 804(a)(1). Bollin contends that he was unavailable because he had invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. A criminal defendant who invokes his Fifth Amendment privilege makes himself unavailable to any other party. United States v. Bumpass, 60 F.3d 1099, 1102 (4th Cir. 1995). Rule 804(a) provides, however, that [a] declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying. Fed. R. Evid. 804(a). By invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, Bollin made himself unavailable for the purpose of preventing his testimony, and he therefore cannot invoke the exception in Rule 804(b)(1). Accord United States v. Peterson, 100 F.3d 7, 13 (2d Cir. 1996) (holding that a defendant who exercises his privilege not to testify at a second trial of his case is not entitled to introduce the testimony he gave at the first trial); United States v. Kimball, 15 F.3d 54, 55-56 (5th Cir. 1994) (same).
The rule of completeness is found in Federal Rule of Evidence 106, which provides: When a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require the _________________________________________________________________ 16 Bollin also argues that his grand jury statements are not hearsay. His statements to the grand jury were made out of court, and Bollin would introduce them to prove the truth of the matter asserted. They are hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The statements were admissible by the Government as admissions under Rule 801(d)(2). 24 introduction at that time of any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which ought in fairness to be considered contemporaneously with it. Fed. R. Evid. 106. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a party from misleading the jury by allowing into the record relevant portions of the excluded testimony which clarify or explain the part already received. United States v. Wilkerson, 84 F.3d 692, 696 (4th Cir. 1996). The portions of the excluded testimony thus must be relevant to an issue in the case, and the court need only admit the portions that are necessary to clarify or explain the portion of the testimony already admitted. Id. Bollin identifies several portions of his grand jury testimony that he contends should have been admitted under Rule 106. We have reviewed Bollin's grand jury testimony as admitted and his unredacted grand jury testimony. Like the district court, we conclude that the omitted testimony was not necessary to avoid misleading the jury or otherwise place the admitted testimony in context. The fact that some of the omitted testimony arguably was exculpatory does not, without more, make it admissible under the rule of completeness.