« Environment - Stories today | Main | Indiana Decisions - 4 new postings by Court of Appeals »
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Indiana Decisions - 7th Circuit posts one
USA v. Gilbert, Stanley (SD Ind., Sarah Evans Barker, Judge)
* * * Gilbert raises a number of challenges on appeal, but the
dispositive one concerns the admission at trial of pre-trial
statements made to police officers by Gilbert’s wife, Sherese
Gilbert (hereinafter referred to as “Sherese” so as to distinguish
her from the defendant Gilbert). Sherese invoked
her marital testimonial privilege and refused to testify at
trial. The court, however, admitted the taped conversation
with the officers as well as its transcript into evidence. In
admitting the conversation into evidence, the court held
that it bore sufficient circumstantial guarantees of reliability.
The court relied for its ruling on prior caselaw that held
such statements were admissible under the residual
exception to the hearsay rule in Federal Rule of Evidence
807 (formerly Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(5)) if the declarant were
unavailable as a witness and there were sufficient circumstantial
guarantees of trustworthiness. * * *Since Gilbert’s trial, however, the Supreme Court issued
Crawford v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004). Addressing
a similar situation in which a wife’s out-of-court statements
to a police officer were admitted at trial, the Crawford
Court held that the admission of testimonial hearsay
evidence in a criminal trial where the defendant has no
opportunity to cross-examine the witness violates the
Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 1374.
In light of that Supreme Court decision, the government
acknowledges on appeal that the taped conversation was
not properly admissible, and that its admission at trial
violated Gilbert’s constitutional rights under the Confrontation
Clause. The government argues, however, that its
admission was harmless. Therefore, the issue before us is
whether it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational
jury would have found Gilbert guilty even absent the
admission of Sherese’s statement. Neder v. United States,
527 U.S. 1, 18 (1999); United States v. Nance, 236 F.3d 820,
825 (7th Cir. 2000). We therefore must consider the improperly
admitted evidence in the context of the trial as a
whole. * * *In light of the evidence as a whole at trial, we
cannot determine beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury
would have returned a guilty verdict absent the statements
by Sherese. Accordingly, Gilbert is entitled to a new trial
free from that error. * * *In conclusion, although the district court properly followed
our precedent in admitting Sherese’s statements,
Crawford has since made it clear that the admission of her
statements is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the decision of
the district court is REVERSED and the case REMANDED for
a new trial.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 9, 2004 01:26 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions