761 F. Supp. 2d 114
S.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Ghailani convicted on one count conspiracy and for causing death; sentencing pending.
- Witnesses largely Swahili-speaking; FBI 302s summarized by non‑Swahili interpreters; agents had no personal knowledge of statements.
- Defense sought to impeach six East African witnesses with extrinsic testimony from FBI agents who signed the 302s.
- Interpreters were Tanzanian/Kenyan officers; not mere language conduits; translations potentially unreliable.
- Court limited extrinsic impeachment to issues with sufficient inconsistency and proper foundation; ultimately precluded the proposed extrinsic evidence for four witnesses.
- Remainder of witnesses’ impeachment attempts also barred on hearsay and collaterality grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of extrinsic impeachment evidence via FBI 302s | Ghailani seeks to impeach witnesses with 302s | Extrinsic evidence allowed if proper foundation and inconsistency | Extrinsic impeachment evidence barred (hearsay; unreliable interpreter translations; Rule 403) |
| Impeachment of Juma—consistency and collateral issues | Proffered FBI testimony shows prior inconsistent statements | Inconsistencies are clear and material; admissible | Precluded due to hearsay, ambiguity, and collaterality; no proper basis for extrinsic impeachment |
| Impeachment of Maganga, Lukulu, Abdalla, Teacher—hearsay and collateral concerns | Extrinsic testimony to prove prior statements | Statements were inconsistent and relevant to Ghailani’s involvement | Precluded for hearsay against interpreters and collaterality; not admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hale, 422 U.S. 171 (1975) (inconsistency standard for credibility determinations under Rule 613)
- United States v. Trzaska, 111 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 1997) (test for inconsistency bearing on credibility; foundation requirements)
- United States v. Surdow, 121 F. App'x 898 (2d Cir. 2005) (court may exclude unduly prejudicial impeachment not previously disclosed)
- United States v. Lopez, 937 F.2d 716 (2d Cir. 1991) (interpreter translation hearsay issues; language conduit considerations)
- United States v. Koskerides, 877 F.2d 1129 (2d Cir. 1989) (identity of interpreter and reliability in translated statements)
- United States v. Da Silva, 725 F.2d 828 (2d Cir. 1983) (hearsay concerns when statements translated by interpreter)
- People v. Chin Sing, 242 N.Y. 419 (1926) (New York rule on interpreter as agent or verified translator)
- Martinez-Gaytan, 213 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 2000) (reliability of translators; limitations on impeachment evidence)
- Saget, 991 F.2d 702 (11th Cir. 1993) (impeachment via third-party characterization of statements; stipulates adoption)