From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Fernandez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 19, 1988
839 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988)

Summary

holding that exclusion of defendant's exculpatory hearsay statement did not violate due process because government did not introduce inculpatory hearsay statements by defendant

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzales

Opinion

No. 87-5028.

Submitted December 23, 1987.

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Decided February 19, 1988.

Thomas A. Hagemann, Asst. U.S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Joseph F. Walsh, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, SKOPIL, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.



Frank Fernandez was indicted and tried for bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). In cross-examination of F.B.I. Agent Thomas Bateman, defense counsel sought to elicit a post-arrest statement Fernandez made to Bateman in which Fernandez denied committing the robbery. The court sustained the government's objection that the question sought to elicit hearsay.

Since the statement was not to be used against Fernandez, Fernandez acknowledges it was not admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule found in Rule 801(d)(2)(A), Federal Rules of Evidence. United States v. Palow, 777 F.2d 52, 56 (1st Cir. 1985).

Fernandez contends his post-arrest statement was not hearsay because it was not offered for the truth of its contents, but to forestall any assumption that he had admitted guilt by silence. Since the government made no suggestion that Fernandez's silence was significant and did not introduce evidence that an accusatory statement was made in Fernandez's presence or that he failed to respond to such a statement — prerequisites to inferring an admission by silence, see United States v. Moore, 522 F.2d 1068, 1075 (9th Cir. 1975) — Fernandez's justification for eliciting the statement is unconvincing.

Fernandez was not prevented from introducing his denial — he could have testified to the statement himself. He chose not to testify. It seems obvious defense counsel wished to place Fernandez's statement to Bateman before the jury without subjecting Fernandez to cross-examination, precisely what the hearsay rule forbids. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(c); United States v. Willis, 759 F.2d 1486, 1501 (11th Cir. 1985).

Fernandez argues exclusion of the statement violated his due process rights, relying upon United States v. Benveniste, 564 F.2d 335 (9th Cir. 1977). In this case, unlike Benveniste, the government did not introduce any allegedly inculpatory hearsay statement by Fernandez; therefore due process does not require that Fernandez be allowed to present exculpatory hearsay statements.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Fernandez

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Feb 19, 1988
839 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988)

holding that exclusion of defendant's exculpatory hearsay statement did not violate due process because government did not introduce inculpatory hearsay statements by defendant

Summary of this case from United States v. Gonzales

finding that due process does not require that the defendant be allowed to present exculpatory hearsay statements

Summary of this case from U.S. v. Ortega

finding that due process does not require a defendant be allowed to present exculpatory hearsay statements

Summary of this case from Robles v. State

In Fernandez, there was no issue of completeness, as the defendant sought to elicit his standalone denial made to an FBI agent following his arrest.

Summary of this case from United States v. Quinones-Chavez

stating that the introduction of an exculpatory statement without subjecting a defendant to cross-examination is "precisely what the hearsay rule forbids"

Summary of this case from United States v. Way
Case details for

U.S. v. Fernandez

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. FRANK FERNANDEZ…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 19, 1988

Citations

839 F.2d 639 (9th Cir. 1988)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. Ortega

See Williamson, 512 U.S. at 599 (finding that "[t]he fact that a person is making a broadly self-inculpatory…

United States v. Quinones-Chavez

It does not, however, mandate that a court allow a defendant to place his inadmissible statements "before the…