Document: 475 U.S. 387 106 S.Ct. 1121 89 L.Ed.2d 390 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Joseph INADI. No. 84-1580. Argued Dec. 3, 1985. Decided March 10, 1986. Syllabus Following a jury trial in Federal District Court, respondent was convicted of conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, related offenses. Part the evidence consisted taped conversations between various participants conspiracy. Respondent sought exclude recorded statements unindicted co-conspirators, including one Lazaro, on ground that they did not satisfy requirements Rule Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), which provides statement by co-conspirator party made "during course furtherance conspiracy" is hearsay when offered against party. also objected admission Confrontation Clause grounds, contending were inadmissible absent showing declarants unavailable. The Court held satisfied admitted statements, conditioned prosecution's commitment produce Lazaro. Government subpoenaed but he failed appear, defense counsel no effort secure his presence. court then overruled respondent's renewed objections, holding Lazaro's admissible because rule. Appeals reversed, holding, reliance Ohio v. Roberts, 448 56, 100 2531, 65 597, although 801(d)(2)(E) had been satisfied, established an independent requirement Government, as condition any out-of-court must show declarant's unavailability. Held: does require unavailability nontestifying co-conspirator. Pp. 392-400. (a) supra, simply reaffirmed longstanding rule applies analysis prior testimony witness produced at trial, cannot fairly be read stand for proposition can introduced prosecution without declarant 392-394. (b) principles whereby may substitute live only if unavailable do apply statements. Co-conspirator derive much their value from fact are context very different therefore usually irreplaceable substantive evidence. Their into thus actually furthers Clause's mission advancing "truth-determining process." 394-396. (c) Little benefit would accomplished Under such rule, either or available prosecution, could introduced. Nor likely adds anything process" over above what relative interests parties will have changed drastically. In contrast slight benefits, burden imposed significant. A required each invocation accompanied decision availability impose substantial entire criminal justice system. Moreover, significant practical since every case involving co-conspirators' identify declarant, locate them, attempt ensure trial. 396-400. 748 F.2d 812 (CA3 1984), reversed. POWELL, J., delivered opinion BURGER, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. MARSHALL, filed dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, joined, post, p. 400. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Holly Maguigan, Philadelphia, Pa., respondent. Justice POWELL Court. 1 This presents question whether requires testify, co-conspirator's 2 * Eastern Pennsylvania, Joseph Inadi He sentenced three years' imprisonment followed 7-year parole term. showed September 1979, approached Michael McKeon, who seeking distribution outlet methamphetamine. Respondent's role supply cash chemicals methamphetamine responsible its distribution. McKeon another co-conspirator, William Levan, substance. 3 manufacturing selling met with John empty house Cape May, New Jersey. There extracted additional liquid residue previous batches. early morning hours May 23, 1980, two police officers, pursuant warrant, secretly entered removed tray covered drying With permission issuing Magistrate, officers delayed returning inventory, leaving speculate happened missing tray. 4 On 25, Drug Enforcement Administration agents Philadelphia monitored meeting Lazaro alongside car. At point saw lean After drove off, stopped They searched car, passenger, Marianne found nothing let Lazaros leave. later recounted during search she threw away clear plastic bag containing white powder her husband handed after Eight search, returned scene crime small quantity 5 From 23 27, County Prosecutor's Office lawfully intercepted five telephone These played dealt aspects conspiracy, planned meetings speculation about taken set up 25 stop search. other co-conspirators governing declarations.1 listening tapes finding conspirators thereby 801(d)(2)(E). 6 suggested prosecutor bring order demonstrate asked wanted call witness, stated discuss matter client. admitted, claiming car trouble. record indicate own part presence court. 7 arguing testify. objection, ruling rule.2 8 Third Circuit (1984). agreed decided declarant. F.2d, 818. derived this "unavailability rule" 597 (1980). rejected Government's contention Roberts created "clear constitutional applicable generally. reason create special exception ruled inadmissible. Id., 818-819. 9 We granted certiorari, 471 1124, 105 2653, 86 271 (1985), resolve those otherwise 801(d)(2)(E).3 now reverse. II A. 10 our Roberts. It quoted "in conformance Framers' preference face-to-face accusation, Sixth Amendment establishes necessity. usual . produce, of, whose it wishes use defendant." U.S., 65, S.Ct., 2538. viewed language setting forth before admitted. interpretation 11 however, wholesale revision law evidence, nor support broad Clause. itself disclaimed intention proposing general answer many difficult questions arising out relationship hearsay. "The has 'map theory determine validity all "exceptions." ' " 64-65, 2538-39, quoting California Green, 399 149, 162, 90 1930, 1937, 26 489 (1970). remained "[c]onvinced 'no perfectly possible problems' "invitation overrule near-century jurisprudence" 68, n. 9, 2540, Natali, Dutton, Chambers: Three Cases Search Theory, Rutgers-Camden L.J. 43, 73 (1975). addition, specifically noted "demonstration always required." 7, 2539, 7. light these limiting should abstract presented case, rather resolution issue said examining: "the propriety introduction preliminary hearing defendant's subsequent state trial." 58, 2535.4 12 focuses factors come play seeks admit judicial proceeding place See Fed.Rule Evid. 804(b)(1). particular, examined requirement, long line cases testimony, government Mancusi Stubbs, 408 204, 92 2308, 33 293 (1972); supra; Barber Page, 719, 88 1318, 20 258 (1968); Berger California, 393 314, 540, 21 508 (1968).5 All cited concern testimony. focused cases, Mancusi, directly "explored unavailability." 76, 2544. Both limited Barber, 722, 1320; 211, 2312. 13 consistently answered, authority cited, facts. foreshadowed Pointer Texas, 380 400, (1965), refined through testimony.6 radical B 14 good reasons why developed former Unlike some exceptions rules, exemption definition involved often weaker seldom evidentiary significance own, intended replace If same information trier form full cross-examination opportunity view demeanor there little justification relying version. When versions available, hearsay, well analysis, favor better Graham, Right Hearsay Rule: Sir Walter Raleigh Loses Another One, Crim.L.Bull. 99, 143 (1972). But unavailable, "better" version exists, point. 15 Those Because while conspiracy progress, provide conspiracy's replicated, even testifies matters Government—as here—offers drug dealer illegal circumstances made. Conspirators speak differently talking aims than testifying stand. Even takes stand, in-court reproduce portion 16 positions substantially time defendant partners suspects defendants potentially damaging other. himself facing indictment incentive aid yet equally wary coming crime. situation, extremely unlikely recapture operating force. 17 points distinguish cases. rested strong similarities proceedings No exist To contrary, circumstances, "only folly dictate across-the-board policy doing without" Advisory Committee's Introductory Note Problem, Westen, Future Confrontation, 77 Mich.L.Rev. 1185, 1193, 35 (1979). declarations "Confrontation mission" "advance 'the accuracy truth-determining process trials.' Tennessee Street, 409, 415, 2078, 2082, 85 425 Dutton Evans, 400 74, 89, 91 210, 220, 27 213 C 18 appears little, any, Appeals' First, anyway. Thus, defended "better evidence" serve anything, unless makes mistake producing witness. Cf. Davenport, Co-Conspirator Exception Criminal Prosecutions: Functional Analysis, Harv.L.Rev. 1378, 1403 example, testified under immunity, based Levan properly asserted Fifth privilege 19 Second, 220. Some already defense, regardless requirements. Presumably neither side believes particularly helpful witnesses. position case. Neither originally witness.7 subsequently show, alleging trouble, independently several options 806,8 whom calls entitled examine him cross-examination." 806 make necessary declared hostile presumably option him. Compulsory Process aided obtaining declarants.9 desire chosen subpoena favorable 806,10 see what, gained "available."11 While benefits seem slight, requiring determination introduce declaration automatically avenue appellate review complex apparently most frequently used D. Louisell & C. Mueller, § 427, 331 (1980).12 places prosecution. specificity declarants, endeavor continuing Where incarcerated prison officials marshals transporting them courthouse, increased risk escape. For unincarcerated sometimes lengthy period aware whereabouts run efforts test "good faith." 74-77, 2543-45; id., 77-82, 2545-47 (BRENNAN, dissenting); United States Ordonez, 737 793, 802 (CA9 1984).13 22 An burdens wished Any marginal protection forcing witnesses willing cross-examine hold today embody III degree, arguments us revisit Court's 212-13 Although instead 801, broader category Nevertheless, plurality violate fifth Member Harlan, reasoned all. "we coconspirator applied federal courts." 80, 215. Upon closer examination today, we continue affirm decline prerequisite admission. 24 accordingly reverse judgment Circuit. so ordered. BRENNAN joins, dissenting. respect us, majority step. (1980), held: "[W]hen present normally then, bears adequate 'indicia reliability.' 66, 2539 (quoting (1970) (plurality opinion)). assures "[t]he reliability case." Ante, 391, 3. free return argue lack "indicia reliability" demanded Clause.1 28 giant leap. conceding 'very mission' 'advance trials," ante, 396 (citations omitted), holds offended fails slightest authors hopes convict defendant. I share majority's implicit faith camaraderie guarantee conspiratorial accept silent values embodied cavalierly subordinated prosecutorial efficiency. 29 30 canvassing noted: 31 operates separate ways restrict range (including where occurred), 32 second aspect once shown Reflecting underlying purpose augment factfinding ensuring effective means adverse countenances marked trustworthiness 'there material departure rule.' 2538-39 Snyder Massachusetts, 291 97, 107, 54 330, 333, 78 L.Ed. 674 (1934)). sweeping way particular variety declarations, panel reverses hardly alone believing declarations. See, e.g., Massa, 740 629, 639 (CA8 1984); Haggins Warden, 715 1050, 1055 (CA6 1983), cert. denied, 464 1071, 104 980, 79 217 (1984); Caputo, 758 944, 950, 1985) (collecting cases). majority, tells "simply testimony." 394. confine misconstrues both meaning essential command 34 Contrary suggestion, consciously lay down analytical framework truth contain. writing affirmation twin noting: [149,] 162 [90 489] [1970]. approach problem discernible." principles, turned number 255 Motes States, 178 458, 993, 44 1150 (1900); (all 2543). relied (cited 2539), Georgia exception, Douglas Alabama, 1074, 934 (1965) 63, 2537), accomplice's confession. Indeed, "that reflects confrontation 'primary interest secured [the provision] right cross-examination.' 2537 (footnote omitted) Douglas, 418, 1076). absence confining surprising. recognized whenever open trusted guarantors primary need critical extrajudicial confession accomplice. 36 introduces merely might thinking listeners believe spoke, implicated (1985). However, invokes urging here confidence factual deem testing unnecessary trial's result. 37 quite suggest "[c]onspirators stand." 395. differences utterances diction demeanor. That truly furtherance" possibly guarantee, indicium, reliability. 1384-1391 Note, Clause: Closing Window Admissibility Coconspirator Hearsay, 53 Ford.L.Rev. 1291, 1311-1312 As commentator 38 "Conspirators' prove exists less trustworthy membership. conspirator's lie misleading listener stronger more members (and members) has. victory common sense belief criminals notorious veracity basis law." Levie, Conspiracy, 52 1159, 1165-1166 (1954). 39 unreliability product duplicity conduct business. stems ambiguities appear casual conversations, just outlaws. 104, 227 (MARSHALL, dissenting). And difficulties making slang dialect compounded private codes, indeed problems, trained hard pressed piece together facts confused tangle intercepted. appearance allow elimination ambiguity profit from. 40 Consideration exempted confirms doubts types excepted 1384-1385; 1161-1167. Rather, root lies law. agency supports law, "once combination established, act conspirator, enterprise, considered all, all." Gooding, Wheat. 460, 469, 693 (1827). Every scheme verbal conspirator own. 41 theory, Committee proposed Rules labeled "at best fiction," Notes U.S.C.App., 718, justify conferred upon traditional speaks reliable factfinding. 42 Without attempting inherent cross-examination, "it force." asserts, "co-conspirator evidence." Ibid. 43 understand fear somehow deprive triers valuable in, "adequate reliability,' 2539. stem notion able court, prevent truth. conclusion overlooks importance truth-seeking process. still sufficiently grounds exclusion. enhance jury. chance inquire motives led color time. Cross-examination force clarify ambiguous phrases coded references. says inconsistent statement, doubt advance explanation inaccuracy statement—"an expected take account deciding which, either, represents truth," 159, 1935, Nelson O'Neil, 402 622, 627-629, 1723, 1726-27, 222 (1971). 45 Whether affirms, denies, qualifies contribute Whatever contained lost. supplemented fact. 46 Recognizing indispensable reminds exercise rights remains defendant, reasons, 'available.' 398. assuming, seems do, standard state's obligation [pursuant Clause] precisely governs confront Clause]," Process: Unified Theory Cases, 567, 588 (1978), satisfactory response claim. 47 short argument gives confronted him, seek situation similar case: 48 "That [a declarant] called mitigate misconduct here. State shift calling State's equivalent putting subjecting severely alter presumptions innocence proof protect accused." Hoover Beto, 439 913, 924 (CA5 1971) (Wisdom, J.), rev'd rehearing en banc, 467 516 (CA5) (over dissent seven judges), 409 1086, 93 703, 673 49 disadvantages theoretical. notes "significant burden" placed specificity. 399. illustration forced face, refers 793 violation failure individuals entries "drug ledgers" 399, 13. identifications. proper assume guilt impute knowledge regarding pending charges, claimed minor necessarily intimate names activities alleged co-conspirators.2 [should have] persons uses accused because, sides, initiate production time." 616. 50 deny certain tactical advantages vouchsafed regime attend whoever heard focus inquiry await chooses risks bolstering jury's eyes allegations rebut. certified judge, mean perceived jury, dramatize antagonism hyperbole lose sympathy 51 harshest grilling occur elapsing substantial. During time, unrebutted jurors' minds. effect enhanced repeat examining short, "[o]nly lawyer experience impeach one's immediate regarded greatest safeguard American procedure." York Life Ins. Co. Taylor, U.S.App.D.C. 147 297, 305 (1945); Oates, 560 45, 82, (CA2 1977). prosecutions, drawback. statutory obtain possession—a attaches "[a]fter direct examination," U.S.C. 3500. compulsory supported. equivalent. cast unwanted supernumeraries realities prosecutions. instances exercise. Anderson 417 11, 94 2253, 2260, (1974). IV bottom, today's rests traditionally trials considerations concerns easily disregarded. plight Raleigh, condemned deposition accomplice recanted, loomed large drafted guarantee. F. Heller, (1951); Stephen, Trial Transactions Royal Historical Society 172 (4th series 1919). Framers, pre-science, surely apprehensive spectacle conviction handful surveillance technicians box recording boasts, faulty recollections, helps spectable become occurrence. dissent. "a conspiracy." four (Mrs. McKeon) third (Levan) outside determined reliable, violated sole correct. charges forging check name Bernard Isaacs possession stolen credit cards belonging wife. hearing, Isaacs' daughter She permitted apartment days, refused given checks cards. Between fault State, disappeared. use. offer transcript rebuttal. 58-60, 2535-36. 804 imposes allowing "may readily conceded rules generally designed values," 155, 1933, overlap complete. Mattox 156 237, 337, (1895). fact, actions frequent occurrence cases—neither wants explained 395, together. coincide partners, harmful others. states: "When defined 801(d)(2), (C), (D), (E), credibility attacked, attacked supported, purposes Const., Amdt. 6: "In shall enjoy favor. ." Western, 586-601 (1978). meet unavailability, needed. suffers flaws interpretation, defensible addition mentioned text value, asserted, within implicating phone suggesting "Mike" took speculating stop. 815. Certainly background explain events. last Term nonhearsay "raises concerns." 414, 2081-2082, interests. 801 characterizes exemptions from, to, termed exceptions, apply. Ordonez introducing ledgers unidentified adequately totally unable conspirators. Today's conflict among lower courts particularized Compare DeLuna, 763 897 (particularized requirement); 722 530, 535 1983) assessment needed exemption); Perez, 702 (CA2) (same), 462 1108, 103 2457, 1336 (1983), Boone Marshall, 760 117, 119 (declaration "automatically satisfies requirements"); Molt, 1198 (CA7 (same); Ottomano 468 269, 273 (CA1 1972) 1128, 948, 260 (1973). Exception: Action, Assertion, Hofstra L.Rev. 323, 361-362, nn. 131-132 realize addresses extends hypotheticals discuss.

Category: 0