Testimony About Anonymous Crime Tip Written on a Traffic Cone Outside Suspect’s Home Was Inadmissible Hearsay, But Not Grounds for Reversal, Holds Eighth Circuit

In United States v. Bartunek, No. 19-1584 (8th Cir. Aug. 12, 2020), the Eighth Circuit holds that it was error for a police investigator to testify about a message left anonymously outside a suspect’s home – a traffic cone with the word “chimo” (for “child molester”) written near the bottom. The conviction stands, though, becauseContinue reading “Testimony About Anonymous Crime Tip Written on a Traffic Cone Outside Suspect’s Home Was Inadmissible Hearsay, But Not Grounds for Reversal, Holds Eighth Circuit”

Criminal Confessions of Cooperating Witnesses Not Admissible as Prior Consistent Statements Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), Holds Fifth Circuit

For the second time in the past two weeks, in United States  v. Portillo, No. 18-50793 (5th Cir. Aug. 5, 2020), a U.S. Court of Appeals publishes an opinion applying the 2014 amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) that expanded the admissibility of prior consistent statements. The Second Circuit recently upheld the admission of priorContinue reading “Criminal Confessions of Cooperating Witnesses Not Admissible as Prior Consistent Statements Under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), Holds Fifth Circuit”

State Department Cables Ruled Inadmissible Under Public-Records Exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), by Eleventh Circuit

Creating a possible circuit split, the Eleventh Circuit holds in Eloy Rojas Mamani v. Gonzalo Daniel Sanchez De Lozada Sanchez Bustamante, No. 18-12728 (11th Cir. Aug. 8, 2020), that State Department cables containing unattributed observations about conditions in a foreign country are inadmissible hearsay, not covered by the public-records exception of Fed. R. Evid. 803(8).Continue reading “State Department Cables Ruled Inadmissible Under Public-Records Exception, Fed. R. Evid. 803(8), by Eleventh Circuit”

Second Circuit Confirms That a 2014 Amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) Expands Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements

In United States v. Purcell, No. 19-238 (2d Cir. July 23, 2020), affirming in substantial part a conviction for operating a prostitution ring, the court considers a challenge to the admissibility of prior consistent statements of a witness, under the recently-amended Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B)(ii). A prosecution witness, Wood, was cross-examined by the defense aboutContinue reading “Second Circuit Confirms That a 2014 Amendment to Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B) Expands Admissibility of Prior Consistent Statements”