Opinion ID: 739906
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Trzaska's Trial

Text: 11 At trial, the government offered the evidence outlined above except for the evidence gathered during the illegal plain view search and seizure. 12 After the government presented its case, Trzaska presented his defense, which consisted principally of evidence indicating that his son Kevin owned and possessed the guns. Kevin testified, in pertinent part, as follows: 13 Q. [D]o you know a man by the name of Hank, a friend of your father's? 14
15 Q. And, were you present on any occasions when Hank asked your father to take [your father's guns] from him? 16 A. Yes, I was. 17 ....Q. Did there come a time when your father asked you to pick up [the guns] from Hank? 18 A. Yes.... 19 .... 20 Q. Do you know why your father asked you to pick them up? 21 A. He didn't want nothing to do with them anymore. 22 (emphasis added). The government did not object to this testimony. 23 The government then began its rebuttal. The government argued that Trzaska's statement to his son that Trzaska didn't want nothing to do with [the guns] anymore was hearsay, and sought to impeach Trzaska by showing that the statement was inconsistent with Trzaska's subsequent statement to O'Keefe that he was addict[ed] to guns. Fed.R.Evid. 806 allows a hearsay declarant to be impeached as if the declarant had testified in court as a witness. 24 Trzaska's statement to O'Keefe ordinarily would be inadmissible because it was made during the illegal search and seizure at Trzaska's apartment. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398, 34 S.Ct. 341, 346, 58 L.Ed. 652 (1914); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 485-86, 83 S.Ct. 407, 416-17, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). However, in Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 74 S.Ct. 354, 98 L.Ed. 503 (1954), the Supreme Court held that illegally seized evidence can be used to impeach a criminal defendant if that defendant testifies in his or her own defense. Id. at 65-66, 74 S.Ct. at 356-57. The government argued that because Fed.R.Evid. 806 allows a hearsay declarant to be impeached as if the declarant were a witness, the government should be allowed to impeach Trzaska as if he were a witness, and therefore, the government should be allowed to use Trzaska's inconsistent statement to impeach him. Trzaska argued that his statement to his son was not hearsay so that he could not be impeached under Fed.R.Evid. 806, and that in the alternative, Walder was not applicable here. See James v. Illinois, 493 U.S. 307, 110 S.Ct. 648, 107 L.Ed.2d 676 (1990). 25 The district court concluded that Trzaska's statement to his son was hearsay, that the government could therefore impeach Trzaska under Fed.R.Evid. 806, and that Walder allowed the government to use the illegally acquired statement to impeach Trzaska. See United States v. Trzaska, 885 F.Supp. 46, 48-50 (E.D.N.Y.1995) (discussing whether the illegally acquired evidence was admissible to impeach Trzaska under Walder ). Further, in order to put Trzaska's statement that he was addicted to guns in context, the district court permitted probation officer O'Keefe to testify that she removed a rifle, various ammunition, spent shells and live shells, and calibrators, reloading equipment, and various other things from Trzaska's apartment during the illegal plain view search. The district court instructed the jury to use Trzaska's statement to O'Keefe only to impeach Trzaska's statement to his son. 26 The jury convicted Trzaska of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition.