Court Opinion

ID: 9472765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:09:54.082716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:07.787151
License: Public Domain

*1186SILER, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, as I would affirm the trial court.
With regard to the issue concerning the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, the notes of the postal inspector in his interview with Rebecca Ann West are not “statements” producible under the provisions of the Act, which defines “statement” as:
(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him;
(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement; or
(3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or a transcription thereof, if any, made by said witness to a grand jury.
18 U.S.C. § 3500(e).
Obviously, the notes did not fall within subsections (2) or (3), so if they are “statements,” they must come within subsection (1). See Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 96 S.Ct. 1338, 47 L.Ed.2d 603 (1976).
Clearly, it would have been the better practice for the district court to have held a hearing outside the presence of the jury to see if the notes by the postal inspector were “statements” under the Jencks Act. See United States v. Chitwood, 457 F.2d 676 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 858, 93 S.Ct. 141, 34 L.Ed.2d 103 (1972). Here, however, the defendant had an opportunity to make the record during cross examination of both the postal inspector and Rebecca Ann West, and neither even hinted that the notes taken by the postal inspector were read back to West. These notes were just used to prepare questions the postal inspector suggested to West when she later spoke to Robert Smith. Those questions were produced by the United States as Jencks Act materials, although there was even an issue whether they qualified as statements, as West said she did not read the questions she was given.
Had the notes been transmitted to this Court, it perhaps could have considered the matter under the procedure adopted in United States v. Chitwood, supra at 678. As the notes were not transmitted to this Court, the only remedy that is available is not a new trial, but a remand for the non-adversary hearing. Nevertheless, I believe that is unnecessary under the facts developed under cross examination, as the notes were never signed or otherwise adopted or approved by West, as was done in Goldberg v. United States, supra; and Campbell v. United States, 373 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 1356, 10 L.Ed.2d 501 (1983).
On the second issue raised about the taped statement made by Robert Smith, I also believe that there was no error. When the taped confession by Robert Smith was introduced into evidence, Robert was still a defendant. Therefore, it was admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(A), Federal Rules of Evidence, which is conceded by the appellant.
After Robert Smith pleaded guilty and had been severed from the case, he took the stand and admitted his participation in the crime. At that point (although not argued in the government’s brief), the prior consistent statement on the tape was admissible under Rule 801(d)(1)(B), Federal Rules of Evidence, to rebut an implied charge against Robert of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive. See Baker v. Elcona Homes Corp., 588 F.2d 551, 559 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 933, 99 S.Ct. 2054, 60 L.Ed.2d 661 (1979).
The majority opinion asserts that the statement does not come within this prior consistent statement exception as it was admitted before Robert Smith testified. At that time it was admissible against Robert only. However, when Robert subsequently took the stand, it became admissible against Terry Smith once defense counsel on cross examination implied that there was recent fabrication or improper influence or motive, through a plea bargain or “difficulties” within the family.
*1187Even if that prior consistent statement was not admissible under that exception, the redacted statement on tape was not prejudicial to the defendant. The only reference to Terry Lee Smith on tape mentions that he had a job and later that he “handed [the money] to Robert.” 1 However, Terry’s defense was that it was a robbery, so he admitted being at the scene, as he was an employee, and being forced to give up the money. The other references which the defendant has made to the tape in which he claims prejudice make no mention of Terry Smith. If there was any prejudice to the defendant, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284 (1969).

. From pages 14-15 of the transcript:
WEST: Well, how’s Terry and Jamie Doing? They doing all right?
SMITH: They’re doing real well. Terry's working and Jamie’s working.
WEST: Terry get a job finally?
SMITH: Yea, he is working for, what it the name of it, some lumber company.
WEST: I thought he was an electrician.
SMITH: Well, he’s just sorta doing that cause you know he’s picked up.
WEST: He's not in the union is he?
SMITH: No, no, no, he’s not an union electrician, no. He was working as an electrician in California but there is nothing around here for electricians now union or nonunion. So he is driving a lumber truck.
From page 22 of the transcript:
WEST: How did Terry do it, just throw it at you,
SMITH: Just handed it to me.
WEST: Did he act like, you know, did he act nervous, and all that, you
SMITH: Nah