Court Opinion

ID: 9476570
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 05:59:20.413261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:23.529134
License: Public Domain

MESKILL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I disagree with the majority’s asserted grounds for affirming the district court and I respectfully dissent.
The majority states that the government “gains nothing” from arguing the applicability of subsection (C) of Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2) to this case. Subsection (C) should not be rejected out of hand, however. Subsection (C) provides that “a statement by a person authorized by [a party] to make a statement concerning the subject” may be admitted as an admission by a party opponent. Here, although we have no evidence of express authorization to make the statement, it can be reasonably inferred that Valencia communicated to his attorney the information concerning his association with Bolivar with the expectation that it would be used to exculpate him. Because I believe that Valencia implicitly authorized Maloney to use these statements, I would hold that the statements qualified for admission under Rule 801(d)(2)(C).
The majority next holds that Judge Bramwell did not abuse his discretion in excluding Maloney’s statements under subsection (D) of Rule 801(d)(2). I disagree. There can be no dispute that the statements satisfied the literal requirements of subsection (D). These statements were made by Maloney, an agent of defendant Valencia. They were made during the course of bail negotiations, a matter clearly within the scope of Maloney’s employment. Also, the statements were made during the existence of the agency relationship. Thus, all of the requirements of Rule 801(d)(2)(D) were met.
The majority looks beyond the literal requirements of the Rule and holds that Judge Bramwell did not abuse his discretion in excluding Maloney’s statements. The majority relies on United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1984), to support its conclusion. In McKeon, we reaffirmed that “ ‘[statements made by an attorney concerning a matter within his employment may be admissible against the party retaining the attorney.’ ” Id. at 30 (quoting United States v. Margiotta, 662 F.2d 131, 142 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913, 103 S.Ct. 1891, 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983)). We also noted, however, that in the context of criminal cases “such statements [should not be subject] to the more expansive practices sometimes permitted under the rule allowing use of admissions by a party-opponent.” Id. at 31. “[I]n order to avoid trenching upon other important policies,” id. at 32, therefore, we held that the use of an attorney’s prior jury argument should be admitted as a party admission only under certain conditions. Although prior jury argument is not involved in this case, these conditions no doubt apply equally to Maloney’s statements, which were made during the course of informal bail negotiations.
The first consideration identified in McKeon is whether “free use of prior [statements] might consume substantial time to pursue marginal matters.” Id. Maloney’s statements, however, did not re*175late to “marginal matters.” Instead, the statements are the only innocent explanation offered so far for Valencia’s association with Bolivar. No danger is presented here concerning jury confusion with issues that are collateral to the central question of guilt or innocence.
Second, McKeon cautions that “inferences drawn from an inconsistency in [prior statements] may be unfair.” Id. In this case, however, the jury could fairly conclude that the falsity of Valencia’s explanation implies consciousness of guilt. Indeed, in the absence of some other plausible explanation, this would seem to be the only rational inference that could be drawn. McKeon’s concern for fairness, therefore, is likewise not implicated here.
The third factor to be considered is whether “the free use of prior [statements] may deter counsel from vigorous and legitimate advocacy.” Id. Rather than deter advocacy, however, I suggest that admission of Maloney’s statements would cause counsel to be more careful in verifying the accuracy of information offered by the client before communicating the client’s statements to the government. An attorney who possesses competent and reliable information favorable to his client will rarely be deterred by Rule 801 from vigorously pursuing his client’s interests. Accordingly, consideration of this factor does not support Judge Bramwell’s decision.
McKeon’s fourth consideration is that a defendant may be forced to take the stand to explain the inconsistency in the attorney’s statement where an innocent explanation exists, thus forcing a waiver of his Fifth Amendment privilege. Id. In this case, however, Maloney’s statements would be contradicted by evidence already possessed by the government. Valencia offers not a hint that he has an innocent explanation for this contradiction or would be forced to take the stand to offer one. We should not presume that this danger exists absent some indication in the record.
Finally, the last factor identified in McKeon is the danger that use of an attorney’s prior statement may lead to disqualification of counsel, thus implicating a defendant’s right to counsel of one’s own choosing. Id. at 33. In McKeon, two inconsistent opening statements made by defense counsel were at issue. In such a case, it is clear that defense counsel “ought” to be called as a witness to explain the inconsistency. New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102(A) (McKinney 1975), prohibits an attorney from serving as counsel where he is expected to testify on behalf of his client. Here, however, Maloney merely offered a statement that would be contradicted by the government’s evidence. He did not offer two inconsistent versions of the same event. Unlike the situation where the attorney himself creates the inconsistency, Maloney would not be expected to take the stand on behalf of his client to explain why the government’s evidence contradicted his own.1 None of the considerations in McKeon, therefore, argues in favor of excluding Maloney’s statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).
The majority recognizes the differences between our case and McKeon, but takes the position that these differences provide additional reasons under the Rule for excluding Maloney’s statements. First, they theorize that difficult problems of proof will arise in a case such as this where the statements were made in an informal, off-the-record setting rather than at trial as in McKeon. In our case, however, there is no dispute over the content of Maloney’s statements. The parties seem to agree that the statements concerned the duration of Valencia’s relationship with Bolivar. Moreover, since the relevance of these statements is unquestioned, it would seem that any problems of proof concerning their precise content, if such problems did arise, are problems that go to the weight of the evidence rather than to its admissibility. Furthermore, there is no indication that Judge Bramwell relied on this factor in excluding the evidence.
*176Second, the majority holds that the statements could be excluded because they “would pose some threat to chilling the prospects for plea negotiations.” But at the time these statements were made, the parties were conducting bail negotiations, not plea negotiations. Statements made during the course of plea negotiations are fully protected from disclosure by Fed.R. Evid. 410. The federal rules do not provide for the automatic exclusion of statements not made during the course of plea negotiations, even if those statements are a “prelude” to plea negotiations as the majority contends here. The majority’s solution, therefore, would give protection to statements that the federal rules were not intended to cover. Also, nothing in Rule 801 provides for a judge’s consideration of the likelihood of future plea negotiations as a basis for excluding evidence that meets all of the requirements of the Rule. Judge Bramwell’s recourse to exclude unfair and prejudicial evidence would have been to resort to Fed.R.Evid. 403, the general rule of exclusion. This he did not do. I believe that the majority’s attempt to fill this void by broadening a district judge’s discretion under Rule 801 is both unwise and unfortunate.
Finally, as a third basis for excluding Maloney’s statements, the majority writes that “the Government’s claim to the statements is not strong.” According to the majority, the government did not seek the statements to prove directly an element of the offense. Rather, the government sought merely to establish consciousness of guilt. I would contend, however, that in a case such as this where it is the government’s word against that of the defendant, evidence tending to show consciousness of guilt is indeed important to the government’s case. If it can be established that defendant’s only innocent explanation for the course of events leading to his arrest was a fabrication, then the government’s case is significantly strengthened. I believe that the government’s claim to the evidence is very strong. Moreover, the majority proposes no standards by which to judge how “strong” the government’s claim to the evidence must be before it can be admitted under Rule 801.
The differences between this case and McKeon do not support the majority’s conclusion that Judge Bramwell did not abuse his discretion in excluding Maloney’s statements from evidence. The differences, where they exist, are largely irrelevant. Because I conclude that Maloney’s statements should have been admitted as admissions under Rule 801, I will address the remaining issues concerning the attorney-client privilege and privilege against self-incrimination.
The district court held that the statements were protected by the attorney-client privilege because they were made by Maloney in an “informal” setting. App. at 8. Whether the statements were conveyed in a formal or informal setting, however, is beside the point. The relevant questions are whether the defendant communicated information to his attorney with the expectation that his communications would remain confidential, see, e.g., United States v. Tellier, 255 F.2d 441, 447 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 821, 79 S.Ct. 33, 3 L.Ed.2d 62 (1958), and whether the privilege, if it existed, was waived. See In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ocean Transportation, 604 F.2d 672, 675 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Sea-Land Serv. v. United States, 444 U.S. 915, 100 S.Ct. 229, 62 L.Ed.2d 169 (1979). Considering the clearly exculpatory nature of Valencia’s statements, and his awareness that Maloney was engaged in bail negotiations on his behalf, it would be incredible to suggest that Valencia did not expect this information to be used to secure his release. Because Valencia would not reasonably wish to have his self-serving statements to Maloney held in confidence, I would hold that the communications were not protected by the attorney-client privilege. See Tellier, 255 F.2d at 447 (information communicated to attorney with no expectation of confidentiality held not protected by attorney-client privilege).
Even if the privilege did attach, however, it has been recognized that the privilege can be waived by an attorney acting within the scope of his authority. See Ocean *177Transportation, 604 F.2d at 675. Clearly, Maloney had authority to enter into bail negotiations on behalf of Valencia. This authority implied the power to decide what information was to be used to secure the release of his client. Id. Having implicitly granted his attorney this authority by hiring Maloney and by providing Maloney with the necessary tools (the statements) to accomplish his purpose, Valencia “may not now be heard to complain about how that authority was exercised.” Id. I would, therefore, hold that the privilege, even if it existed, was waived.
Valencia’s final claim is that admission of the statements made through Maloney would violate his privilege against self-incrimination. Earlier the Drug Enforcement Administration accepted similar statements from Valencia without satisfying the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and the government agreed not to use those statements. Valencia now claims that use of Maloney’s statements would constitute a further violation of Miranda. The exclusion of a statement on the basis of a Miranda violation, however, does not render all subsequent statements on the subject matter excludable. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1298, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985); United States v. Morales, 788 F.2d 883, 886-87 (2d Cir. 1986). “[A] simple failure to administer the warnings, unaccompanied by any actual coercion or other circumstances calculated to undermine the suspect’s ability to exercise his free will [does not] so taint[] the investigatory process that a subsequent voluntary and informed waiver is ineffective for some indeterminate period.” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 309, 105 S.Ct. at 1293. Here, there was no evidence of coercion either by the government or by Maloney. Valencia’s statements were entirely voluntary and he had every reason to expect that Maloney would use them to secure his release on bail. Accordingly, I would hold that no Miranda violation occurred and, for all of the above reasons, I would reverse the decision of the district court.

. Although, as the majority notes, the government "acknowledges" that Maloney might be subject to disqualification, its concession alone does not provide a reasoned explanation for why Maloney might be called as a witness in this case.