United States v. Cooper
1:19-cr-00159
E.D.N.YOct 22, 2019Background
- On Jan. 22, 2019 Officer Robert O’Brien followed Cornalious Cooper for erratic, high-speed driving; Cooper allegedly lurched forward, struck O’Brien with his car, then fled east on the Belt Parkway.
- O’Brien made three radio transmissions between 11:49–11:52 PM describing the stop, the suspect’s flight, high speed, and later that the subject struck his right leg.
- Cooper was arrested Feb. 7, 2019; he gave oral statements to agents and a signed written statement confessing to driving and fleeing but saying he fled because he was scared and denying knowledge that he hit the officer.
- The government moved in limine to admit O’Brien’s radio runs under the present-sense-impression and excited-utterance exceptions, and to exclude portions of Cooper’s oral and written statements as unjustified or prejudicial.
- Cooper opposed both motions, invoking hearsay rules, Rule 403, and the rule of completeness (Fed. R. Evid. 106/Rule 611) to require admission of surrounding/exculpatory statements.
- The Court admitted O’Brien’s first radio run (both present-sense impression and excited utterance), excluded the second and third radio runs as inadmissible hearsay, denied the government’s request to redact Cooper’s oral statements, and permitted only a limited redaction of Cooper’s written statement (excluding post-event remorse language but not his fear-based explanation).
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Cooper's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of O’Brien’s radio runs under present-sense impression / excited utterance | All three radio runs are contemporaneous/excited and thus admissible hearsay exceptions | The radio runs are not contemporaneous or made under excitement; admission would be prejudicial | First radio run admissible as both present-sense impression and excited utterance; second and third runs inadmissible hearsay |
| Rule 403 challenge to first radio-run phrase that the subject “tried to attempt to hit me” (opinion on intent) | Highly probative as the only near-contemporaneous account; not unduly prejudicial | Statement is opinion on intent/ultimate issue and will unfairly prejudice jury | Probative value outweighs prejudice; statement admissible |
| Whether government may admit portions of Cooper’s oral statements while excluding exculpatory context (rule of completeness) | Gov’t seeks to admit confession to driving and fleeing but exclude statements justifying flight (fear) and denials about hitting officer | Redaction would distort meaning; Rule 106/611 requires admission of surrounding exculpatory/contextual remarks | Government may not omit Cooper’s oral statements; the exculpatory/contextual oral statements must be admitted |
| Whether government may redact portions of Cooper’s written statement | Seeks to redact everything after the gun/hood sequence (including fear explanation and later remorse) | Completeness requires admission of fear explanation; later remorse may be less relevant | Court allows redaction of late remorse/regret language but not the contemporaneous fear explanation (“I was scared… I just ran”) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mejia-Valez, 855 F. Supp. 607 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (discusses contemporaneity requirement for present-sense-impression exception)
- United States v. Tocco, 135 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 1998) (excited-utterance admissibility does not require strict contemporaneity; focus on whether declarant remained under stress)
- United States v. Scarpa, 913 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1990) (length of time between event and utterance is one factor in excited-utterance analysis)
- United States v. Obayagbona, 627 F. Supp. 329 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (district court determination of excitement and admissibility under Rule 104(a), and admission of out-of-court audio when excitement evident)
- United States v. Awadallah, 436 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 403 exclusion upheld for potentially unduly influential witnesses such as grand jurors)
- United States v. Marin, 669 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1982) (Rule of completeness requires admission of writings in entirety when necessary to explain admitted portion)
- United States v. Capaldo, 402 F.2d 821 (2d Cir. 1968) (completeness doctrine ensures fair and impartial understanding of admitted excerpts)
- United States v. Castro, 813 F.2d 571 (2d Cir. 1987) (Rule 106 governs writings; similar fairness principles apply to oral statements under Rule 611)
- United States v. Alvarado, 882 F.2d 645 (2d Cir. 1989) (completeness principle for oral statements violated only when redaction distorts meaning or excludes substantially exculpatory material)
- United States v. Johnson, 507 F.3d 793 (2d Cir. 2007) (upholding redaction where redacted and admitted portions concerned distinct times/places/topics)