Document: 505 U.S. 317 112 S.Ct. 2503 120 L.Ed.2d 255 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Anthony SALERNO et al. No. 91-872. Argued April 20, 1992. Decided June 19, Syllabus The respondents were indicted on a variety of federal charges, including fraud and racketeering in connection with the allocation construction contracts among so-called "Club" companies exchange for share proceeds. Witnesses DeMatteis Bruno, owners Cedar Park Construction Corporation, testified before grand jury under grant immunity that neither they nor had participated Club. At trial, however, United States used other evidence to show was Club member. subpoenaed but invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination refused testify. District Court denied respondents' request admit transcripts DeMatteis' Bruno's testimony pursuant Federal Rule Evidence 804(b)(1)—which permits admission an unavailable declarant's from former hearing if party whom it is now offered "similar motive develop by direct, cross, or redirect examination"—reasoning prosecutor's questioning witness different his conducting trial. convicted, Appeals reversed, holding erred excluding testimony. It ruled that, maintain "adversarial fairness," 804(b)(1)'s similar element should evaporate when government obtains immunized proceeding who refuses testify at Held: 1. Former may not be introduced 804(b)(1) without showing motive." Nothing suggests court absent satisfaction each Rule's elements. err arguing contains implicit limitation permitting motive" requirement waived interest adversarial fairness. Also rejected argument forfeited its right object testimony's contradictory about Park. Here, never revealed what Bruno said jury, but, rather, attempted Park's involvement using evidence. In addition, mistakenly argue fairness prohibits suppression exculpatory produced proceedings. Dennis v. States, 384 855, 86 1840, 16 973, distinguished. Pp. 320-324. 2. This case remanded consideration whether Since erroneously concluded did have demonstrate such motive, consider fully parties' arguments this issue. 324-325. 937 F.2d 797 (CA2 1991) 952 623 reversed remanded. THOMAS, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, JJ., joined. filed concurring opinion. STEVENS, dissenting James A. Feldman, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Michael E. Tigar, Austin, Tex., respondents. Justice THOMAS Court. 1 states exception hearsay rule allows court, certain instances, witness. We must decide criminal defendant introduce asserts 2 * seven respondents, Anthony Salerno, Vincent DiNapoli, Louis Nicholas Auletta, Edward Halloran, Alvin O. Chattin, Aniello Migliore, allegedly took part activities organization known as Genovese Family La Cosa Nostra (Family) New York City. 1987, Southern four others basis these activities. indictment charged offenses, 41 acts constituting "pattern illegal activity" violation Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b). 3 Sixteen alleged involved industry 1980s. According later admitted influence over labor unions control supply concrete rig bidding large projects Manhattan. purportedly allocated six 4 Much concerned affairs Concrete Corporation (Cedar Park). Two firm, Frederick Pasquale immunity. response questions repeatedly stated Park, fact, belonged calling two contractors taken scheme presenting intercepted conversations also documents indicating ownership 5 To counter States' evidence, witnesses hope would provide same presented jury. When both testify, asked Although constituted hearsay, see 801(c), argued fell within witnesses. 6 observed trial only examination." held stating "motive prosecutor investigatory stages far trial." App. Pet. Cert. 51a. A subsequently convicted RICO counts offenses. 7 Second Circuit (1991). recognized "the no . impeach DeMatteis" government's examining irrelevant." Id., 806. decided order "evaporat[e]" Ibid. granted certiorari, 502 ----, 931, 117 103 (1992), reverse remand. II 8 statements made declarant than while testifying See 801(c) (hearsay definition), 802 rule). parties acknowledge rule, standing itself, blocked introduction 804(b)(1), establishes provides: 9 "The following are excluded witness: 10 "(1) Testimony.—Testimony given another opportunity 11 properly interpreted case. 12 agree "unavailable" defense witnesses, provided 804(a)(1). They "testimony witness[es] hearing." disagree, final clause prevented 13 language thus unless motive," we conclude hearsay. contrast, urge us read "slavishly literal fashion." Brief Respondents 31. contend fairness" prevents relying States. 14 Congress enacted prohibition 802, placed 24 exceptions 803 additional 804. presumably careful judgment come into not. respect determination, enforce words enacted. result, cannot alter evidentiary rules merely because litigants might prefer particular class cases. Green Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 504, 524, 109 1981, 1982, 104 557 (1989). 15 result takes several forms. first assert requires infer limitations. observe, example, Advisory Committee Note 804 makes clear applies oath affirmation, even though does state restriction explicitly. Committee's Notes Fed.Rule Evid. 804, 28 U.S.C.App., p. 788, subd. (b), except. (1). likewise hold require all instances. example persuade change our reading 804(b)(1). If sworn statements, so implies limitation, simply word "testimony" refers affirmation. Black's Law Dictionary 1476 (6th ed. 1990). way interpret text mean defendants sometimes do 17 courts often depart Rules prevent truth. For citing Miller, 600 498 (CA5 1979), although enjoy various testimonial privileges, can forfeit privileges "opening door" subjects. view, attempting use like keep away contend, fails. Even assuming treat governing forfeiture occurred here. Parties exposing privileged one taking position contradict. J. Wigmore, 2327, 636 (McNaughton rev.1961); M. Larkin, Testimonial Privileges 2.06, pp. 2-103, 2-104, 2-120 litigant, "after giving version communication, [could not] cross-examiner utilizing communication itself get truth." F.2d, 501 (emphasis added). case, any Instead, participation solely through available exposed anything analogous "privileged communication." argument, accordingly, fails own terms. 19 finally prohibit note required disclosure transcript 973 (1966), "it rarely justifiable prosecution exclusive access" relevant facts. 873, S.Ct., 1850. allege nevertheless uses tactics one-sided manner: inculpates during proceedings, immunizes him calls trial; exculpates defendant, here, immunize attempts exclude hearsay.1 dispensing limit tactics. 20 again fail how create unlike one, involve question admissibility Rather, need disclose defendants. U.S., Moreover, Dennis, make available. ordered specific Criminal Procedure 6(e). 869-870, 872, 1848-49, support Indeed, specifically ask ignore it. Neither else cited provides authority. B 21 remains found review factual determinations. argues generally will proceedings he prosecutor, explains, secrecy process therefore desire confront further know, prior indictment, issues importance accordingly effectively. 22 disagree arguments. characterize Court's ruling law, rather essentially motives always differ actually thoroughly Bruno. add despite concern maintaining secrecy, identity major them 23 Appeals, noted, declined motive. Rather address issue here instance, think prudent remand consideration. Cf. Denton Hernandez, 504 1728, 1734, 118 340 (1992). ordered. Because "identical similar-motive inquiry, my inherently depending similarity underlying context questioning. either has inquiries involving inquiry appropriately reflects narrow concerns ensuring reliability trial—not broad policy favoring Government conduct overcoming refusal involves unusual complexity number apparently engaged type appropriate resolution I join majority remanding 25 dissenting. 26 believe clearly "opportunity direct cross-examination DeMatteis, affirm ground admissible plain As ante, 319, totally inconsistent Government's theory conspiracy bids principals Park), which, according Government, member submitted rigged accordance orders Nostra. But notwithstanding fact been grants immunity, bid-rigging conspiracy. explained, "one largest metropolitan City industry," arguable participation, "there could 'club' contractors." 797, 808 1991). And "Club," allegations industry—which "formed core charges"—"simply dissolv[e]." 27 precisely establishing false Thus, prosecutors doubted veracity jury—as most assuredly did—they unquestionably examination" meaning 804(b)(1).1 disagrees, asserting "typically cross-examine hostile 11. so, maintains, (1) cross-examining indirectly undermine proceedings,2 (2) discredit means cross-examination, (3) typically quite those id., 11-14; Reply 9-12. reasons—even true—do justify lacks third reason conclusion "similar," present facts 29 completely Wigmore's assertion "beyond doubt greatest legal engine ever invented discovery truth,"3 Anglo-American system principal undermining credibility whose inaccurate.4 reason, who, her estimation, inaccurate material proceeding. 30 Of course, decide—for tactical reasons otherwise—not engage rigorous all.5 accurate say lacked witness; instead, more (i.e., misleading testimony) chose act allow choice she accept consequences decision—including possibility subsequent proceeding.6 31 Thus decline fear talk target investigation choose witness' alters challenge declining take advantage witness, undermines engaging i.e., shake satisfied—and hence trial—in many situations.7 32 That leaves contention important true developing scope necessarily limited proceeding, little indeed permitted, issues. become proceeding.8 33 occur however. After reviewing sealed testimony, "[v]ery stated, awareness of, let alone in," contractors, existence crucial dealing industry. 808.9 reveal some witnesses' denials knowledge activity included probing confronting contrary people. 34 am satisfied DeMatteis; consequently, Appeals. suggest event chooses Fed.Rules 607, 801(d)(1)(A). concurring. understanding pass upon weighty concerns, expressed interpretation requirement. appeared matter law "Hearsay exceptions.—The testimony.—Testimony deposition compliance course offered, or, civil action predecessor interest, "If exposes extent individual willingness commit perjury, shown himself allied investigation's targets, effect information targets threaten destroy fabricate defense, otherwise obstruct investigation." 12. 1367, (J. Chadbourn rev.1974). lack justification tradition statements. See, e.g., Cleary, McCormick 245, 728 (3d 1984); 32. diminished, statement time made. Accordingly, common developed permitted opponent adequate declarant. 1386, 90. codified, few changes, common-law rule. 788-789. want run risk appearing harass upset vulnerable witness—such young child victim terrible crime—with there other, less confrontational suspect is, essence, "whether imposing, handling earlier occasion." 788. When, previously obviously cross-examination. But, recognized, "direct examination one's [is] equivalent opponent's witness." 789. long unfairness requiring decision fully. 284 U.S.App.D.C. 248, 904 65, 68 (1990) (prior "as circuits [the witness] brought Before witness'] directed issue—the guilt innocence defendants]"); Pizarro, 717 336, 349-350 (CA7 1983) (initial exculpated second retrial resulted severance trials defendants); Poland, 659 884, 895-896 (CA9) (identification identification unreliable), cert. denied, 454 1059, 102 611, 70 598 (1981); Glenn Dallman, 635 1183, 1186-1187 (CA6 1980) eyewitness preliminary fully), 843, 155, 128 Zurosky, 614 779, 791-793 (CA1 1979) (suppression co-defendant inculpated hearing), 446 967, 100 2945, 64 826 (1980). Wigmore points. slightly modified substituting identity-of-issues drafters reasoned "[s]ince significant bears expressing latter terms preferable." Nevertheless, discussed text, "[i]n determining existed elicitation search substantial issues." Moore, H. Bendix, Moore's Practice 804.04[3], VIII-266 (2d 1989). "Indeed," central 'club's' probably why felt obligated identify sources Brady Maryland." [373 83, 83 1194, 215 (1963) ]

Category: 0