United States v. Truman
688 F.3d 129
2d Cir.2012Background
- Truman was convicted by a jury of arson, wire fraud, and use of fire in the commission of a felony for burning a vacant building he co-owned (Liberty Street building) in Oneida, N.Y.
- Truman Jr. testified at trial (under a cooperation agreement) and later had state court testimony that implicated Truman; the government read parts of that prior testimony to the jury after Truman Jr. refused to answer certain questions.
- The District Court granted a judgment of acquittal on Counts 1–4 and conditionally granted a new trial under Rules 29(a), 29(d), and 33(a) based on Truman Jr.’s credibility and the admissibility of prior testimony, among other grounds.
- The Government presented evidence of motive, timing, and corroborating witnesses; key direct evidence included Truman Jr.’s confession and other circumstantial evidence.
- The court ruled Truman Jr.’s state court testimony was incredible as a matter of law, and it concluded the government’s cross-examination and summations were improper; on appeal the Second Circuit reversed and reinstated the jury verdict, vacating the acquittal and remand for judgment of conviction and sentencing.
- The case was remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with the jury’s guilty verdict and for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Truman Jr.’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law. | Truman Jr.’s credibility was impaired by his cooperation breach and conduct. | The jury should assess credibility; no basis to declare incredibility as a matter of law. | No; credibility is for the jury to decide. |
| Whether Truman Jr.’s state court testimony was admissible nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). | Prior sworn testimony admissible to corroborate current testimony. | District Court incorrectly admitted it as hearsay. | Admissible nonhearsay under Rule 801(d)(1)(A). |
| Whether the government’s cross-examination and summation were improperly prejudicial. | Misstatements and impeachment efforts prejudiced Truman. | Misconduct occurred but did not deprive fair trial given strong evidence of guilt. | Not sufficient to warrant a new trial; not reversible error. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a new trial under Rule 33 based on these grounds. | New trial warranted due to patently incredible evidence and improper admission. | No; credibility and evidentiary issues did not mandate reversal. | District Court abused its discretion; vacated and remanded for reinstatement of verdict. |
| Whether the district court properly treated Dailey’s rebuttal testimony as admissible and weighed it against the other evidence. | Dailey’s testimony supported guilt. | Dailey’s credibility was properly considered by the jury. | Reversal of acquittal affirmed; Dailey’s testimony not sole basis for guilt. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Coté, 544 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008) (de novo review of Rule 29 motions; weigh evidence including improperly admitted evidence)
- United States v. O’Connor, 650 F.3d 839 (2d Cir. 2011) (credibility decisions lie with the jury)
- United States v. Richter, 826 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1987) (prosecutorial misconduct may warrant new trial if prejudicial)
- United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2007) (misconduct not fatal when evidence of guilt strong)
- United States v. Farhane, 634 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2011) (standard to assess prejudice from misconduct)