Court Opinion

ID: 9487153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:09:25.385163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:07.330303
License: Public Domain

ZILLY, District Judge,
dissenting:
The majority has chosen to ignore the clear intent of Congress with respect to the Federal Rules of Evidence concerning hearsay. The trial court erred in admitting the post-arrest statements of Cortez pursuant to Rule 803(24). This error was not harmless. Therefore, I would reverse. Because I believe the majority opinion to be in error as to Part II, I respectfully dissent from that Part. I concur in Parts III, IV and V of the majority’s opinion.
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990), and that Court’s reliance on Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 292 (7th Cir.1979), indicates that, even in the absence of a Confrontation Clause issue, hearsay should not be admitted on the basis of corroboration. See Wright, 497 U.S. at 820, 110 S.Ct. at 3149 (“The circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness on which the various specific exceptions to the hearsay rule are based are those that existed at the time the statement was made and do not include those that may be added by using hindsight.” quoting Huff, 609 F.2d at 292).
The Wright analysis is applicable in this case and precludes the use of the type of corroborative evidence relied upon by the trial court and approved by the majority. The need for a proper determination of trust*1477worthiness is particularly critical in a case such as this in light of the Supreme Court’s view that “an accomplice’s confessions that incriminate defendants” are “presumptively unreliable.” Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 541, 546, 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2062, 2064-65, 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986).
In the version of Rule 801(d)(1)(A) the Supreme Court proposed to Congress all prior inconsistent statements would have been admissible for their truth in eases in which the declarant was available for cross-examination at time of trial. See Proposed Rules of Evidence, 56 F.R.D. 183, 293 & 295-96 (1973). The Senate committee originally recommended adoption of the Supreme Court version of 801(d)(1), rather than requiring the prior statement to have been given under oath, see United States v. Leslie, 542 F.2d 285, 290 (5th Cir.1976) (discussing legislative history of Rule 803(24)), but failed in that effort. After amendments by both the House and the Senate, Congress adopted the current rule which requires prior inconsistent statements to have been given under oath in order to be admissible. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A).
Regarding subsection 24 of Rule 803, the “residual hearsay exception,” the Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s report stated the following:
The committee ... agrees with those supporters of the House version who felt that an overly broad residual hearsay exception could emasculate the hearsay rule and the recognized exceptions or vitiate the rationale behind codification of the rules.
Therefore, the committee has adopted a residual exception for rules 803 and 804(b) of much narrower scope and applicability than the Supreme Court version....
It is intended that the residual hearsay exceptions will be used very rarely, and only in exceptional circumstances. The committee does not intend to establish a broad license for trial judges to admit hearsay statements that do not fall within one of the other exceptions contained in rules 803 and 804(b). The residual exceptions are not meant to authorize major judicial revisions of the hearsay rule, in-eluding its present exceptions. Such major revisions are best accomplished by legislative action ...
Notes of Committee on the Judiciary, S.R. No. 93-1277 (emphasis added).
It is clear from the legislative history of Rules 801(d)(1) and 803(24) that Congress considered permitting the admission of the type of evidence at issue in this case. It is equally clear that Congress declined to do so. It is not the court’s function to expand an exception which was explicitly considered and rejected by Congress.1
This circuit has said that the Rule 803(24) “exception is not to be used as a new and broad hearsay exception, but rather is to be used rarely and in exceptional circumstances.” Fong v. American Airlines, Inc., 626 F.2d 759 (9th Cir.1980). This case is not extraordinary and does not present “exceptional circumstances” warranting the expansion of the hearsay exceptions in such a broad manner.
In support of its conclusion the Cortez’s post-arrest statement was properly admitted pursuant to Rule 803(24), the majority cites three Fifth Circuit cases: Leslie; United States v. Williams, 573 F.2d 284 (5th Cir.1978); and United States v. Barnes, 586 F.2d 1052 (5th Cir.1978). All three Fifth Circuit eases rely upon United States v. Iaconetti, 540 F.2d 574 (2d Cir.1976) which concerned prior consistent statements by the witness. In addition, in Leslie, the court stated that an important factor lending reliability to the prior statements was that the declarants admitted making them, stating “[pjerhaps most significantly, for all practical purposes [the declarant] admitted making the statements.” Leslie, 542 F.2d at 290.
In Williams, the Fifth Circuit, relying on Iaeonetti as well as Leslie, admitted prior inconsistent statements from a sworn and signed affidavit that had been given to the IRS by the witness. Williams, 573 F.2d at *1478288. In Barnes, the court simply relied upon Iaconetti, Leslie, and Williams. Barnes, 586 F.2d at 1055.
Thus, each of the Fifth Circuit cases cited by the majority relied upon Iaconetti in support of the proposition that prior inconsistent statements were admissible°pursuant to Rule 803(24). However, as noted above, Iaconetti concerned prior consistent statements, which the trial court ruled could have been admitted as admissions pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(C) and also as non-hearsay pursuant to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) (prior consistent statement offered to rebut a charge of recent fabrication). United States v. Iaconetti, 406 F.Supp. 554, 558 (E.D.N.Y.1976) (J. Wein-stein).
In addition to the three Fifth Circuit cases discussed above, the majority relies upon Ticey v. Peters, 8 F.3d 498, 502-03 (7th Cir.1993), a habeas appeal which only challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, not the propriety of the admission pursuant to a hearsay exception.2 Id. at 501. In Ticey the declar-ant “acknowledged the prior statement,” id. at 503, which she made within hours of being raped, and acknowledged repeating the statement three days after the attack. Id.
Each of the cases relied upon by the majority in support of its conclusion that such statements are properly admitted pursuant to Rule 803(24) either disregards the Congressional intent in adopting the rule, or is distinguishable from the situation presented in this case, or both. The reasoning of these cases does not provide a basis for a departure of this sort from the legislative history behind Rule 803(24).
Because I do not believe the erroneous admission of Cortez’s entire post-arrest statement to be harmless,3 I would reverse.

. The majority opinion has created its own “yellow brick road” to travel in complete disregard of the clear intent of Congress on this subject.

. “At oral argument, Ticey’s attorney specifically stated that Ticey was not challenging the admissibility of [the prior] inconsistent statement, because the statement was admissible under Illinois law.” Ticey, 8 F.3d at 501.

. The government itself acknowledged that "without Mr. Cortez's statement, it is a circumstantial case.” 7/8 RT at 22.