Court Opinion

ID: 9468669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:20:25.276803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:59.011027
License: Public Domain

*705RONEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the reversal of this jury verdict because of the possible erroneous admission of one piece of evidence.
The letter admittedly recited a conversation between defendant Moore and the writer of the letter, Hardegree. Even if it could not be admitted as an admission in view of Moore’s failure to respond, any hearsay problem could have been eliminated because Moore and Hardegree were both available in the courtroom to be examined about that conversation. The objection was made in this fashion:
MR. GOWER: Your Honor, we would like to object to the introduction of the letter from Mr. Hardegree in that it’s an attempt on the part of Mr. Hardegree as counsel for Southern Stone to impeach Mr. Moore by a letter which Mr. Harde-gree wrote. And I don’t presume Mr. Hardegree is going to take the stand and allow us to cross-examine him. And unless he’s going to allow us to cross-examine him, that letter is not admissible as an attempt to impeach or for any other purpose.
After the court admitted the letter, no attempt was made to call Hardegree for cross-examination. Although Hardegree was trial counsel for Southern, that fact would not prevent Moore from calling him as an adverse witness to cross-examine him about the letter and the conversation. Calling opposing trial counsel may raise ethical questions for that counsel and his client, but that was not Moore’s problem. Hardegree was available for cross-examination, and appellants’ failure to call him should not cause this Court to require a retrial of this case.
In any event, the substance of the letter had been read to Moore in front of the jury during his cross-examination to revive his memory of the conversation. He still could not remember the conversation. During Mr. Gallups’ examination, he testified Moore had told him that S & M Materials was “to get all [the lime] they could” during the later part of 1976, corroborating part of the letter.
In the next trial, the evidence will get in if it is crucial. Hardegree can take the stand and testify as to Moore’s statements. Under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A), this will be admissible. Moore will either deny them or deny knowledge of them, and everything else will remain the same. See Lenz v. Southern Pacific Co., 493 F.2d 471 (5th Cir. 1974) (hearsay did not affect outcome of trial).
To my mind any technical error here is not reversible error, and the judgment should be affirmed.