United States v. Tetioukhine
725 F.3d 1
1st Cir.2013Background
- Defendant Evgueni Tetioukhine (a Russian national) assumed the identity of Fionghal S. MacEoghan for over 20 years, using MacEoghan's birth certificate and Social Security number to obtain ID, a passport application, a mortgage, driver’s license, and federal student aid. He was indicted on multiple counts including wire fraud and false statements; convicted on seven counts and sentenced to 48 months.
- Tetioukhine’s defense at trial: he believed he had been lawfully adopted by MacEoghan’s father (Laurence McCoon) after meeting him in the U.S., and so subjectively believed he had the right to use MacEoghan’s identity.
- Defense sought to call Sergei Khrushchev as an expert to testify about Soviet/Russian cultural context and adoption practices to show Tetioukhine’s belief was subjectively reasonable; pretrial disclosures and oral proffer were broad and vague.
- District court excluded Khrushchev under Rules 702 and 403 as largely irrelevant and unhelpful; court further found Khrushchev lacked specialized knowledge about adoption practices (his knowledge was anecdotal).
- At trial government impeached Tetioukhine with a 1996 larceny conviction after defendant downplayed and mischaracterized the theft when testifying about his employment history; court allowed the conviction as defendant had opened the door by creating a misleading impression and then minimizing the conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of cultural-expert testimony (Rule 702/403) | Expert testimony would show Tetioukhine’s beliefs were subjectively reasonable and thus negated criminal intent | Khrushchev’s testimony was relevant to Soviet cultural context and adoption practices and would help the jury understand defendant’s state of mind | Exclusion affirmed — proffer was vague; testimony mostly irrelevant/ unhelpful; Khrushchev lacked specialized expertise on adoption practices |
| Qualification of expert to testify about Soviet adoption practices | Khrushchev’s lived experience and scholarship on Soviet-era topics qualified him to explain adoption customs | Defendant argued Khrushchev’s background made him competent to opine on cultural/adoption norms | Affirmed — Khrushchev’s experience was anecdotal and not specialized expertise under Rule 702 |
| Admission of prior 1996 larceny conviction for impeachment | Government: conviction admissible after defendant’s testimony created misleading impression and he minimized the misconduct | Defendant: prior conviction should be excluded (Rule 609/403 concerns; remote in time) | Affirmed — defendant opened the door by portraying an unproblematic employment history and then minimizing the theft, permitting impeachment by contradiction under Rules 402/403 |
| Standard of review for evidentiary rulings | N/A (appellate posture) | N/A | Abuse-of-discretion review applied; no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chiaradio, 684 F.3d 265 (1st Cir. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Landry, 631 F.3d 597 (1st Cir. 2011) (a defendant may open the door to otherwise inadmissible impeachment evidence by creating a misleading impression)
- United States v. Nguyen, 542 F.3d 275 (1st Cir. 2008) (defining contours of appellate deference to district court evidentiary judgments)
- United States v. Pires, 642 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (Rule 403 may exclude expert testimony even if it satisfies Rule 702)
- United States v. Sebaggala, 256 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2001) (excluding cultural-expert testimony when connection to material issues is tenuous)
- United States v. Giambro, 544 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (expert testimony based on purely anecdotal experience is insufficient to qualify under Rule 702)