United States v. Maurice D. Moore, 824 F.3d 620

Background

On April 9, 2012, probationer Marcus Hayden was killed in a shootout; police recovered a Glock traced by serial number to Maurice Moore, who had reported it stolen on March 2, 2012.
Moore acknowledged knowing Hayden but denied a close relationship; phone records show Moore’s phone made many calls to a number ending in 9312 around the time he reported the Glock stolen.
Hayden’s probation supervision report from February 2012 listed () -9312 as his cell number (he also admitted recent marijuana use on the form) and he later updated his contact to a different number (6466) on March 22, 2012.
Temporal phone-record patterns: Moore’s calls with 9312 stopped March 7, 2012, then Moore began frequent calls with 6466 hours later, supporting that 9312 and 6466 were used by the same person (Hayden).
The government sought to admit Hayden’s probation reports and officer’s notes to show the 9312 number belonged to Hayden; the district court excluded those records as hearsay.
The government appealed, arguing admissibility under (1) business‑records exception, (2) the residual hearsay exception (Fed. R. Evid. 807), and (3) as non‑hearsay for linking Hayden to Moore; the Seventh Circuit addressed Rule 807 and reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hayden’s probation reports are admissible under Rule 807 (residual hearsay exception)	Gov: Reports have circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, are material and probative, and serve interests of justice	Moore: Reports lack sufficient trustworthiness given Hayden’s criminal history and potential unreliability	Court: Admissible under Rule 807 — Snyder factors overall (motivation, corroboration, personal knowledge, unavailability) favor admission
Whether the reports qualify as business records under Rule 803(6)	Gov: Records prepared in ordinary course of probation office business and thus admissible	Moore: Argued hearsay/untrustworthy — district court excluded on hearsay grounds	Not resolved as dispositive; court decided adverse ruling on 807 was erroneous and reversed on that ground
Whether the reports are non‑hearsay for the limited purpose of linking Hayden to Moore	Gov: Statements used not for truth of matter asserted but to establish connection via phone ownership	Moore: Argues use is hearsay and district court excluded for establishing ownership	Court treated primary basis as Rule 807 admission; observed high probative value and corroboration support admission
Standard of review for admitting evidence under Rule 807	Gov: Abuse of discretion standard; trial court should weigh multiple trustworthiness factors	Moore: District court excluded; focused narrowly on declarant’s character for truthfulness	Court: Reviewed de novo the rules and abused discretion by focusing on a single factor; vacated exclusion and remanded

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Dumeisi, 424 F.3d 566 (7th Cir. 2005) (discussing admissibility under residual exception)
United States v. Rogers, 587 F.3d 816 (7th Cir. 2009) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Ochoa, 229 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. 2000) (elements required to invoke Rule 807)
United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999) (discussing Rule 807 factors)
United States v. Sinclair, 74 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1996) (trial court discretion under Rule 807)
Doe v. United States, 976 F.2d 1071 (7th Cir. 1992) (considerations for admitting residual hearsay)
United States v. Snyder, 872 F.2d 1351 (7th Cir. 1989) (list of factors to assess trustworthiness under Rule 807)
United States v. Doerr, 886 F.2d 944 (7th Cir. 1989) (use of Snyder factors as guide)
United States v. Burge, 711 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2013) (example excluding hearsay where declarant had motive to lie)
Akrabawi v. Carnes Co., 152 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 1998) (caution against overuse of Rule 807)
Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286 (7th Cir. 1979) (admission of reliable hearsay under residual exception)