557 F. App'x 933
11th Cir.2014Background
- Pacquette was convicted of importing 500 g+ of cocaine and possessing with intent to distribute 500 g+ of cocaine.
- The stop occurred at Miami International Airport after arrival from St. Thomas; about 1 kilogram of cocaine found in his bag.
- Two CBP officers testified with differing accounts of Pacquette’s knowledge or denial of ownership of the bag’s contents.
- During trial, defense sought to elicit Pacquette’s denial of knowledge about the cocaine; the district judge barred cross-examination as hearsay and exculpatory.
- In closing, defense referenced the denial; the judge instructed jurors to disregard the denial as not evidence admitted.
- On appeal, Pacquette argued the rule of completeness required admission of the exculpatory portion; the Eleventh Circuit vacated the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusion of Pacquette's exculpatory statement violated the rule of completeness | Pacquette | Government | Abuse of discretion; statement should have been admitted |
| Whether the excluded statement was necessary to clarify the admitted testimony under Rule 106 fairness | Pacquette | Government | Yes, necessary to clarify the statement |
| Whether the error was harmless given the other trial evidence | Pacquette | Government | Not harmless; credibility and completeness affected trial |
Key Cases Cited
- BeecH Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1988) (rule of completeness foundations)
- U.S. v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2005) (extension of Rule 106 fairness to oral statements)
- U.S. v. Range, 94 F.3d 614 (11th Cir. 1996) (Rule 106 fairness standard for oral statements)
- U.S. v. Ramirez-Perez, 166 F.3d 1106 (11th Cir. 1999) (context of Rule 106 applicability)
- U.S. v. Khanani, 502 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (harmful error standard and harmless error review)