United States v. Mladen Mitrovic, 890 F.3d 1217

Mitrovic, a Bosnian national admitted as a refugee and later naturalized, was convicted for unlawfully obtaining naturalization by allegedly concealing his service as a guard at the Trnopolje prison camp during the Bosnian conflict.
Defense investigators interviewed several Bosnian witnesses who said they never saw Mitrovic as a guard; many refused to be deposed or to testify at trial and were outside U.S. subpoena power.
The district court excluded the investigator’s testimony recounting those recalcitrant witnesses’ out-of-court statements as hearsay for lack of indicia of reliability and denied admission under Chambers v. Mississippi.
Mid-trial Mitrovic also asked the court to take judicial notice of Articles 4 and 40 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to support an argument that Bosnia would not document forced labor; the court refused under Rule 403 as confusing and of limited probative value.
The jury heard government testimony from witnesses who said they saw Mitrovic as a guard and other documentary evidence; Mitrovic presented depositions and neighbor testimony denying he served as a guard; he was convicted and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of investigator’s hearsay recounting recalcitrant witnesses	Mitrovic: exclusion violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense (Chambers) because the statements were critical and trustworthy	Government: Federal Rules of Evidence properly applied; hearsay exclusion was not arbitrary; Chambers not satisfied	Court: Affirmed exclusion; federal hearsay rules and gatekeeping not violative of right; Chambers factors not met
Judicial notice of Geneva Convention	Mitrovic: Convention would show Bosnia would avoid documenting forced labor, supporting defense theory that documents were false	Government: Evidence would confuse jury; limited probative value; applicability uncertain	Court: Refused judicial notice/admission under Rule 403; probative value outweighed by risk of confusion; no Chambers violation

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (1973) (permitting otherwise excluded hearsay where reliability and necessity justify admission to protect right to present a defense)
Scheffer v. United States, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (rules of evidence may be applied even if they exclude evidence a defendant claims is exculpatory where rules are not arbitrary or disproportionate)
Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683 (1986) (defendant’s right to present a meaningful opportunity to present a defense)
Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (limitations on defense evidence must not be arbitrary or disproportionate)
Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505 (2013) (reiterating constitutional right to present a complete defense is not absolute)
Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006) (state evidentiary rules that exclude defense evidence may be upheld when probative value is outweighed)
Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (compulsory process right to obtain witnesses in defense)