United States v. Ibisevic
675 F.3d 342
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Ibisevic and his mother carried currency; trial focused on whether he knowingly violated currency reporting laws when leaving the U.S.
- Ibisevic initially stated he carried $5,000; later claimed total currency was $40,000 across bags and person.
- District court excluded Rahima’s proffered testimony about Ibisevic’s belief in what agents were asking, deeming it hearsay
- Jury heard Ibisevic’s own testimony and other evidence; jury found him guilty on three counts and forfeiture was ordered partially
- Ibisevic moved for a new trial; district court acknowledged error in exclusion but deemed it harmless
- Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the error reversible due to centrality to intent and lack of mitigation
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Rahima's testimony | Testimony was irrelevant hearsay; not needed for state-of-mind evidence | Testimony corroborated Ibisevic's claim about misunderstanding currency questions and his intent | Reversible error; exclusion not harmless |
| Materiality of the excluded evidence to the central issue | Issue not central; other evidence supports intent | Excluded testimony directly addressed defendant's intent | Centrality supported reversal |
| Harmless-error standard application | Harmless error analysis shows no substantial impact due to strong evidence | Error could still influence the verdict despite evidence | Error not harmless under Kotteakos/Madden framework |
| Closeness of the case and potential impact of the error | Deliberations and request for a reasonable-doubt definition indicate closeness | Government evidence was strong; case not close | Case was close; exclusion could be decisive |
Key Cases Cited
- Parry v. United States, 649 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981) (excluded corroborating testimony may be decisive when defense credibility relies on it)
- Kohan v. United States, 806 F.2d 18 (2d Cir. 1986) (remanding for new trial when exclusion diminishes defense corroboration)
- Lis v. United States, 120 F.3d 28 (4th Cir. 1997) (excluded corroborating evidence can affect credibility and outcome)
- Curbelo v. United States, 343 F.3d 273 (4th Cir. 2003) (nonconstitutional error harmless only if not substantially swayed by error)
- Ince v. United States, 21 F.3d 576 (4th Cir. 1994) (three-factor test for harmless-error review)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (standard for when an error cannot be said to have not substantially swayed the verdict)
- United States v. Madden, 38 F.3d 747 (4th Cir. 1994) (harmless-error inquiry requires fair assurance the judgment was not swayed)
- United States v. Walton, 207 F.3d 694 (4th Cir. 2000) (en banc raises standard for reasonable-doubt instruction)