Court Opinion

ID: 9464924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:46:37.335783+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:53.166826
License: Public Domain

WIDENER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent on the ground that the taped telephone conversations constitute inadmissible hearsay.
The only question before us in this part of our consideration of this perjury trial is whether Jenkins knowingly drove Johnson to Lyles’ home, or whether, as Jenkins testified to the grand jury, he was on a different mission of his own, with Johnson simply going along for the ride.
The tapes were not needed to prove that Johnson actually visited Lyles’ residence on the night in question, or even that Jenkins dropped her off in the vicinity. The point was simply not contested; Jenkins admitted the fact, and in addition there was evidence from the surveilling agents who saw her. The only thing the tapes were needed for, from the government’s standpoint, was to support an inference that Johnson asked Jenkins to drive her by Lyles’ house, and that Jenkins therefore lied to the grand jury when he denied knowledge of where Johnson was going. Given this central purpose, the taped conversations were hearsay.
The government contends in its brief that the tapes were not introduced to prove that Johnson asked Jenkins to drive her to Lyles’ house. Indeed, it concedes that they would not be admissible for that purpose,1 a con*845cession I think the majority incorrectly refuses to accept. Rather, the government claims the tapes were needed only to show that Johnson wanted to go to Lyles’ house right away. But this fact is relevant to the perjury charge only to the extent that it supports an inference that Johnson requested Jenkins to drive her to Lyles’ house, the very fact the government concedes the tapes would not be admissible to prove.
I think the majority’s application of Rule 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence is erroneous. As the court correctly observes, the hearsay exception for statements of a declarant’s existing state of mind is applicable only to admit proof of the declarant’s future conduct, not that of third persons. “Rule 803(3) was approved in the form submitted by the Court to Congress. However, the Committee intends that the Rule be construed to limit the doctrine of Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285, 295-300, [12 S.Ct. 909, 36 L.Ed. 706] (1892), so as to render statements of intent by a declarant admissible only to prove his future conduct, not the future conduct of another person.” H.R.Rep.No.93-650, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), 4 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 7087. Thus, if Johnson had stated, “Jenkins is about to drive me over,” clearly the statement would be inadmissible to prove that Jenkins did so. The majority opinion concedes this much, yet it is willing to accept the introduction of a hearsay statement, the only relevance of which is to prove the same thing as the just-quoted statement, only to do so inferentially, rather than directly. The point is that the tapes were not introduced merely to prove that Beatrice Johnson went to visit Lyles on the night of July 26, 1975. They were introduced to prove by inference something that they would be inadmissible to prove directly, that Johnson asked Jenkins for a ride to Lyles’ house, that Jenkins knowingly complied with the request, and therefore that Jenkins lied to the grand jury.
I further believe that the panel inadequately distinguishes United States v. Ka-plan, 510 F.2d 606 (2d Cir. 1974), although I do not base my dissent on that case alone as I have explained above. In Kaplan, a wiretap conversation between a narcotics agent and one Lange was admitted in evidence in which Lange had told the agent on January 4th that at the next day’s meeting Lange’s “connection would be there with him.” The connection was the defendant Kaplan. The statement was admitted for the purpose of explaining the narcotics agent's state of mind at the subsequent meeting, and the trial court so instructed the jury. The Second Circuit reversed, not because the evidence was immaterial as the panel may suggest, p. 844, but because it was “not possible as a practical matter to imagine the jury’s having isolated Alieva’s state of mind as a subject of interest separate from the genuinely ultimate issue as to appellant’s activities,” Kaplan, p. 610, as previously alluded to in the opinion on p. 843. Our case is even stronger for the defendant, for in Kaplan the statement was baldly accusatorial as the majority acknowledges, while here the accusatory nature of the statement is only arrived at by inference.
While I agree with part II of the opinion as to materiality, I think the conviction should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial because of the improper admission of hearsay. I believe the opinion sets a precedent, dangerous in scope, for the promiscuous admissibility of wiretap evidence.

. In its brief, the government states, “Jenkins seems to be claiming that Johnson’s telephonic agreement to meet Lyles cannot be used to prove (1) that Johnson told Jenkins she wanted *845him to drive her to Lyles’ house, and (2) that Jenkins agreed and then drove her there. The Government agrees. The telephone calls could not be used to prove those facts and were not introduced for that purpose. As stated in its pre-trial memorandum, and as adhered to in its case and argument, the Government merely wanted to use the telephone calls to show that Johnson wanted to go to Lyles’ house right away.” (Italics added)