United States v. Causevic
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8309
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Causevic was convicted of two false-statement counts under 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(2) and §1546(a) based on statements denying prior arrests and killings.
- CIS conductored background checks; Interpol indicated a Bosnian murder warrant; Bosnian judgment of murder followed a trial in absentia against Causevic.
- CIS officers interviewed Causevic with his sister present; an ICE interview followed; sister later pressured him to tell the truth, after which Causevic admitted killing a man.
- The Bosnian murder judgment was admitted at trial to prove Causevic had killed someone, a purpose argued by the government as non-testimonial but used to prove the truth of the statement.
- The district court admitted the Bosnian judgment over objection; the court held the judgment non-testimonial, allowing admission.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit held the Bosnian judgment violated the Confrontation Clause and reversed the convictions, remanding for a new trial; it declined harmless-error review. Concurring judge would apply a different testimonial-analysis framework.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bosnian judgment violated the Confrontation Clause | Causevic: admission violated confrontation rights. | United States: judgment non-testimonial and admissible. | Yes; admission violated confrontation clause; reverse and remand. |
| Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain Counts V and VI | Causevic contends insufficient evidence of materiality/falsehood. | United States argues evidence supports falsity and materiality. | Sufficient evidence supports falsity and materiality for at least one count; conviction valid if tested anew after remand. |
| Whether the misstep requires harmless-error review or new trial | Causevic argues harmless-error review not appropriate. | United States did not show harmless error. | No harmless-error ruling; reversal and new trial ordered. |
| Whether the trial record supports materiality under 8 U.S.C. §1255 and related statutes | Causevic asserts lack of proof of materiality that affected CIS decision. | CIS denial could be influenced by such statements even if not relied upon. | Record supports materiality; denial could be influenced by false statements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court 2004) (Confrontation Clause requires testimonial statements be cross-examined)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (Supreme Court 2009) (public or forensic reports are testimonial when used to prove truth)
- Kirby v. United States, 174 U.S. 47 (Supreme Court 1899) (conviction records used to prove property was stolen violated confrontation rights)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court 2006) (testimony is testimonial based on purpose and circumstances)
- Weiland v. United States, 420 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2005) (recognizes admissibility of criminal judgments without confrontation in certain contexts)