Court Opinion

ID: 9490742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:53:20.951825+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:17.534516
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
For reasons set out at length in a previous case I wrote for the Court fifteen years ago, Steele v. Taylor, 684 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir.1982), I agree with Judge Keith that the exclusion of the grand jury testimony of Williams, together with the government’s attempt tó prevent Williams from testifying in person, means that there must be a new trial in this case. In Steele we said:
Our research has disclosed no case in which a court upon a finding of wrongful *957conduct has declined to admit prior statements that would have come in had the witness taken the stand.
From these cases we derive essentially the same rule as the one stated by the state trial judge: A prior statement given by a witness made unavailable by the wrongful conduct of a party is admissible against the party if the statement would have been admissible had the witness testified. The rule ... is based on a public policy protecting the integrity of the adversary process by deterring litigants from acting on strong incentives to prevent the testimony of an adverse witness. The rule is also based on a principle of reciprocity similar to the equitable doctrine of “clean hands.”
Id. at 1202. Applying that rule consistently — a rule we applied in favor of the prosecution in Steele- — I must conclude that it was error to exclude Williams’ grand jury testimony when the government had improperly sought to prevent Williams from appearing in court to give live testimony.