Court Opinion

ID: 9465079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 00:35:01.930918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:57.591264
License: Public Domain

HOLLOWAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result:
I agree with the view of Judge Barrett in Part I of our principal opinion that under *520Rule 801(d)(2)(E) the trial court properly admitted the challenged testimony of Officer Espinosa relating the conversation with Mr. Apodaca, the same being within the provision that a statement by a coconspirator of a party, made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy, is not hearsay. Further I agree with Judge Barrett’s view in Part II that the letter from Apodaca to Montgomery was not admissible under that same provision of Rule 801(d)(2)(E). All of the limitations on the definition of hearsay in Rule 801(d)(2) deal with cases where “[t]he statement is offered against a party . . . ” (Emphasis added). Since the letter was being offered by defendant Montgomery, and also because it was not written during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy, Rule 801(d)(2)(E) does not support the admission of the letter.
However, I am unable to agree with Judge Barrett’s view (at 518) that since the letter was hearsay, it necessarily had to meet the requirements of Rule 801(d)(1) or (2) to be admissible, which it failed to do. A coconspirator’s statement is not admissible only under those limited provisions. I feel that a substantial argument could be made for the admission of the letter under the hearsay exception of Rule 804(b)(3), as a statement against interest, when offered by defendant Montgomery.1 The letter was a statement against Apodaca’s penal interest, as the dissent of Judge McKay points out. (Dissenting opinion at 523). The Government conceded at trial that the letter in part purports to exonerate Montgomery, but objected to it on hearsay grounds, its authenticity not being challenged however. (IV R. 322). And it should be noted that the Government also conceded that following an examination of the letter it had a report which was inconclusive as to the handwriting but was conclusive that Apodaca’s fingerprints appear on the letter. (IV R. 323).
However, neither the theory of the exception for statements against interest nor Rule 804(b)(3) itself were argued to the trial court as a basis for admission of the letter.2 After the objections and the rul*521ings rejecting the letter, Montgomery’s counsel proceeded with no mention of the statement against interest exception. Since this exception of Rule 804(b)(3) was not brought to the attention of the trial court, we should not now find error on the basis that the court failed to make the required determinations and failed to admit the letter under that Rule. See United States v. Wells, 525 F.2d 974, 976 (5th Cir.); In re Estate of Poulos, 229 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Iowa); Arizona Water Co. v. City of Yuma, 7 Ariz.App. 53, 436 P.2d 147, 151; Johnson v. Rockaway Bus Corp., 145 Conn. 204, 140 A.2d 708, 710; and see Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 304, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (White, J., concurring).
The dissent concludes there was error under the principles of Chambers. I cannot agree, for to me the holding in Chambers was based on the totality of the circumstances which resulted, inter alia, in some confessions which exculpated Chambers being excluded. See 410 U.S. at 298, 93 S.Ct. 1038. Here, as Judge Barrett points out, testimony by Herrera put before the jury Apodaca’s statements to Montgomery that the Peterbilt truck belonged to his relatives (IV R. 391, 396-97), and the letter’s statements such as that Apodaca had “told Montgomery that [his] father died and left me two big trucks . . .” and that “Montgomery I am sorry I lied to you about that big truck I had you sill (sic) to Louie .” (Supp.R. at 5-6), seem to concern the same point.3 Thus the ultimate impact was not as serious as the rulings in Chambers and, to me, does not amount to a denial of due process under Chambers principles.
Montgomery’s counsel at trial and on appeal argued for admission of the letter on fairness grounds, i. e., that if the incriminating statements of Apodaca were admitted, the exculpatory letter should also come in. I would agree that for what it is worth, the fairness theory was raised properly. Nevertheless there seems to be no basis for admitting the letter on such a ground. And as already noted, the theory that the letter was admissible as a coconspirator’s statement is untenable and the statement against interest exception was not presented at trial.
In sum, I am convinced there was no reversible error and, accordingly, concur in the result reached by Judge Barrett.

. For such an exculpatory statement to be admissible under Rule 804(b)(3), the trial court should determine whether the statement is one against interest and whether corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. See United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244, 251 (1st Cir.)
The exception of Rule 804(b)(3) may be invoked for admission of a coconspirator’s statement which meets the requirements of that rule. See, e. g., United States v. Barrett, supra, 539 F.2d at 246, 249-53. If Rule 801(d)(2) were the sole ground for admission of a statement of a coconspirator, then admission would be limited to a statement “offered against a party” — a result which the Rules do not seem to intend.

. The letter was first offered during Espinosa’s cross-examination and Montgomery’s counsel then argued that if the oral statements of Apodaca were coming in against Montgomery without benefit of cross-examination, Apodaca’s other statements in the “notarized letter” should be admitted. Montgomery’s counsel stated also that the court had ruled that coconspirator’s statements made outside the presence of the defendant are admissible, that the defendant “would extend that just a bit,” that the letter was “likewise admissible,” and that if the government had any legitimate contention that the letter was not one from Apodaca to Montgomery there might be an arguable question, but that he did not think the government made any such contention. (IV R. 324). Throughout the government argued only the hearsay objection.
Defense counsel contended that what was “good for the goose is good for the gander, but [the letter] is more reliable than hearsay.” (Id. at 325). The court said the letter was a communication between one conspirator and the other and that it is admissible against the conspirators, but not in favor of them. (Id. at 324-25).
Later, while the jury was excused for an offer of proof and Herrera was being questioned by Montgomery’s counsel, the letter was again offered after Herrera testified about statements made by Apodaca that he “felt bad about telling Bernard a lie about the truck. He might get him into trouble when he told him something that didn’t really happen.” (Id. at 387-88). Herrera testified that Apodaca said Montgomery wasn’t aware the truck was stolen, and that information indicating that Montgomery did not know the Peterbilt truck was stolen was contained in the letter. (Id. at 388-89). Defendant offered the letter after Herrera’s testimony discussing it, saying that “. . . the letter now has foundation for introduction and it’s just like the testimony of the government, it is hearsay but it is co-conspirator’s statement.” (IV R. 389; see also IV R. 324). The trial judge then stated that he would deny admission of *521the letter on two grounds, one that it is hearsay and the other that the letter came long after the conspiracy, if any, had expired. (Id. at 389).

. As noted Apodaca’s letter does say that he had told Montgomery his “father died and left me two big trucks.” (Supp.R. at 5). The second “truck” would not seem to refer to the D-3 Caterpillar, however, and thus the letter appears to exculpate Montgomery only as to knowledge that the Peterbilt truck was stolen. Herrera’s testimony covered that point.