United States v. Michael Henderson
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 24163
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Henderson, a felon, was convicted of possession of a firearm in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); the central issue at trial was possession of the gun.
- An out-of-court statement from Rosado, unavailable as a witness, claiming Rogers found and brought the gun into the van, was sought to be admitted as non-hearsay under Rule 804(b)(3) but was excluded.
- The gun was found wedged between Henderson’s driver-seat and seatback; fingerprints on the gun could not identify the individual who touched it.
- Rogers, a co-traveler and fellow felon, allegedly made a statement about the gun after the arrest; Rosado first raised the statement in March 2012, before trial.
- The district court ruled the Rosado statement implausible and not sufficiently corroborated, thus excluding it; Henderson was convicted after trial.
- On appeal, Henderson argues exclusion of Rosado’s statement was erroneous and warranted a new trial; the Seventh Circuit reviews for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 804(b)(3) corroboration standard | Henderson argues corroboration should cover content and making of the statement. | Jones-based standard says corroboration must show trustworthiness; content need not be independently corroborated. | No clear error; corroboration must indicate trustworthiness, not require all content corroboration. |
| Sufficiency of corroboration for Rogers’ statement | Totality of circumstances supports trustworthiness; Rogers’ motive to help Henderson evidenced by timing. | Statement implausible and lacking independent corroboration; insufficient to show trustworthiness. | District court did not abuse discretion; corroboration insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Jones, 600 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings; trustworthiness deference)
- United States v. Hall, 165 F.3d 1095 (7th Cir. 1999) (corroboration requirements for Rule 804(b)(3))
- United States v. Garcia, 986 F.2d 1135 (7th Cir. 1993) (corroboration need not be of content; must indicate trustworthiness)
- United States v. Amerson, 185 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 1999) (discussion of corroboration standards (dissent cited))
- United States v. Hatfield, 591 F.3d 945 (7th Cir. 2010) (contrast on admissibility of exculpatory hearsay)
- United States v. Butler, 71 F.3d 243 (7th Cir. 1995) (illustrates corroboration arising from accompanying circumstances)
- United States v. Silverstein, 732 F.2d 1338 (7th Cir. 1984) (concerns dangers of fabrication in corroboration analysis)
- Long-Gang Lin v. Holder, 630 F.3d 536 (7th Cir. 2010) (lack of relevant corroboration indicators is probative)