Court Opinion

ID: 9466179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:07:28.891372+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:35.191771
License: Public Domain

ENGEL, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
The technique of interrogation in this case 1 is perilously close to that condemned in Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 417-20 & n. 3, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965), and in United States v. Mayes, 512 F.2d 637, 648-51 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1008, 95 S.Ct. 2629, 45 L.Ed.2d 670 (1975). The facts here, however, persuade me to concur.
In Douglas the defense had no opportunity for effective cross-examination because the witness was able successfully to assert a privilege against self-incrimination and thus to avoid the confrontation. Here the witness simply stated he did not remember. It has to be obvious from any objective reading of the record that the witness could, in fact, remember and that, had the defendant so desired, his counsel could have *756cross-examined the witness. Nothing in the record suggests that the defendant could not have applied to the court for an order to require the witness to answer or face punishment by contempt. For this reason, in my opinion, Tolbert was not denied any right of confrontation.
Alternatively, it is apparent that the state could have obtained a ruling by the trial judge, based upon the record, that the witness’ purported “loss of memory” was a product of coercion by the defendant. In this event, the Confrontation Clause would not have been violated by admitting the witness’ prior statements. Douglas v. Alabama, supra, 380 U.S. at 420, 85 S.Ct. 1074; see Motes v. United States, 178 U.S. 458, 471, 20 S.Ct. 993, 44 L.Ed. 1150 (1900); Mayes, supra, 512 F.2d at 648-51; United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1357-60 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977).
Clearly defendant’s counsel concluded that it would be better to accept the objectionable procedure with instructions of the court concerning its limited application rather than to avail himself of his full right of confrontation, a right which if exercised might well have exposed the jury to the witness’ direct testimony concerning the killing and the defendant’s threats on the witness’ life. Worse yet, the testimony so given would then have been received as substantive evidence without any limiting instructions. Notwithstanding that, I find the technique employed very disturbing.
I write separately to emphasize my belief that, as a general proposition, grand jury testimony cannot be employed against a defendant without violating his right of confrontation, unless there has been meaningful opportunity to cross-examine. Federal Rule 15 guarantees that constitutional right in federal courts by authorizing the use of deposition testimony only in cases where a full opportunity for cross-examination has been accorded. Fed.R.Crim.P. 15(d). A prior opportunity to cross-examine is also required under Fed.R.Evid. 804 as a predicate to the admission of former testimony. Rule 804(b)(1). Likewise in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970), the defendant had an earlier opportunity to confront the witness therein at the preliminary hearing. 399 U.S. at 165, 90 S.Ct. 1930. Compare Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 407, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). Such an opportunity is not accorded in grand jury proceedings. I am not prepared to suggest that merely because it was given under oath, in a relatively solemn setting, testimony before a grand jury automatically provides its own “guarantee of trustworthiness” sufficient to by-pass the constitutional right to confrontation. See United States v. West, 574 F.2d 1131 (4th Cir. 1978) (divided panel); United States v. Gonzalez, 559 F.2d 1271 (5th Cir. 1977) (testimony not admissible); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346 (8th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1977) (explicit finding by the district court that the grand jury witness’ unwillingness to testify at trial was a product of defendant’s coercion). The legislative history of the residual hearsay exceptions of 804(b)(5) and 803(24) indicates that they were intended to apply in “exceptional” cases. See S.Rep.No.93-1277, 93rd Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in [1974] U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News at 7051, 7065 — 66. I acknowledge, of course, that we are in this habeas corpus case involved only with constitutional principles. Nevertheless the federal rules are instructive as indicating the framers’ concept of their constitutional bounds.
In his treatise, Judge Weinstein addresses both the federal law of evidence and the constitutional right of confrontation at issue here:
W testifies, “I don’t remember ever saying that before the grand jury and I don’t remember anything about what happened.” This is the situation in which it is most likely that the statement will have to be excluded unless it comes within Rules 804(a)(2) and (b)(1) or some other exception. Unless W says something more, gives some details about the event in question, there will be nothing to which cross-examination can be directed. *757When a witness denies making the statement he may at times offer reasons to substantiate his claim — as for instance, that he was out of town the day the statement was allegedly made. When the witness denies recollection, all such opportunities for refuting the making of the statement disappear. Neither the making of the statement nor the truth of the statement can be adequately tested if W denies all memory. In this situation the prior statement if admitted would truly become the present testimony of the witness, because there is no other testimony of the witness relating to the event on record. The statement would become the present testimony even though it had never been subject to cross-examination. Such a result is contrary to the scheme of the federal rules even as adopted by the Supreme Court and would probably violate the constitutional right of confrontation as well.
4 Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 801(d)(1)(A)[07] (1977). See id., n. 1 (Cum.Supp.1977), citing United States v. Shoupe, 548 F.2d 636, 639-44 (6th Cir. 1977). See also United States v. Williams, 571 F.2d 344, 348-50 (6th Cir. 1978).
Finally, where the government employs the technique of interrogation used here, there is little, if any, practical difference between introducing prior testimony for substantive purposes and permitting it to come to the jury’s attention under the guise of “refreshing” the witness’ recollection. See California v. Green, supra, 399 U.S. at 164, 90 S.Ct. 1930; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 234, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940); Rosenthal v. United States, 248 F. 684, 686 (8th Cir. 1918). I find completely unconvincing any suggestion that, somehow, the jury could “unring the bell” and follow the trial court’s limiting instruction under the circumstances shown here. I would, therefore, avoid any suggestion that any impropriety here was cured or even ameliorated by the cautionary statements.
In summary, I would emphasize that the use of grand jury testimony, as here, is a perilous practice, but that it does not violate the Due Process or the Confrontation Clauses where it appears that the witness’ recalcitrance at trial was procured through threats, or where no effort was made by the defense to compel the witness to testify. I also would not suggest that the precautionary instructions given here were curative of any error in admitting the grand jury testimony.