877 F.3d 434
1st Cir.2017Background
- Neil West was convicted in D. Me. of two counts each of aiding and abetting bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 2113) and conspiracy to commit bank robbery (18 U.S.C. § 371 and § 2113), arising from two separate robberies in September 2015; he was sentenced to 175 months.
- West challenges only the convictions tied to the TD Bank robbery (Sept. 12, 2015) on appeal; he does not contest convictions from the earlier Portland credit-union robbery.
- Law enforcement recorded a ~30-minute vehicle pursuit about 30 minutes after the TD Bank robbery; the district court ordered a heavily redacted ~8-minute excerpt shown to the jury and prohibited testimony about redacted portions, plus gave a cautionary jury instruction.
- The government presented extrinsic evidence linking West to the robbery via cooperating witness Joseph Richards, who identified West as the getaway driver and identified the same make/color of van shown in the video.
- West also sought to introduce two statements he made post-arrest (pointing investigators to motel footage and challenging witness IDs); the district court excluded those statements as inadmissible hearsay under Rule 803(3) and allowed them only conditionally if the government introduced other statements about a prior robbery-related conviction.
- The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting (1) West’s claim that the redacted flight video was inadmissible or unduly prejudicial and (2) his contention that the court abused its discretion regarding the conditional admissibility ruling tied to hearsay/state-of-mind issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (West) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of redacted chase video as evidence of consciousness of guilt (flight) | Video is not probative because the chase occurred ~30 minutes after robbery and lacks sufficient link to robbery; even if probative, redacted video is unduly prejudicial | Flight evidence is probative when tied by extrinsic evidence (cooperator Richards tying West/van to the robbery); district court mitigated prejudice via redactions, witness limits, and jury instruction | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion — Richards provided sufficient extrinsic link and Rule 403 balancing was reasonable given redactions and precautions |
| Admissibility of West’s post-arrest statements under state-of-mind hearsay exception (Rule 803(3)) | Statements (point to motel footage; challenge witness IDs) admissible to show West’s innocent state of mind | Statements are hearsay used to prove truth of assertions (memory/belief), so they fall outside Rule 803(3) and are inadmissible unless other conditions met | Affirmed: statements are excluded under Rule 803(3) because they assert facts (memory/belief) and cannot be admitted solely as state-of-mind evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lasseque, 806 F.3d 618 (1st Cir. 2015) (flight evidence may be part and parcel of the charged crime and thus probative)
- United States v. Wallace, 461 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2006) (flight evidence probative when supported by extrinsic evidence of guilt)
- United States v. Benedetti, 433 F.3d 111 (1st Cir. 2005) (requires sufficient factual predicate/extrinsic evidence before admitting flight evidence; Rule 403 balancing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- United States v. Alcantara, 837 F.3d 102 (1st Cir. 2016) (co-conspirator testimony can serve as extrinsic evidence linking a defendant to charged offense)
- United States v. Cianci, 378 F.3d 71 (1st Cir. 2004) (state-of-mind exception inapplicable where declarant’s statement is offered to prove truth of asserted facts)
- Daigle v. Me. Med. Ctr., Inc., 14 F.3d 684 (1st Cir. 1994) (cautionary jury instructions can reduce risk of unfair prejudice from evidence)
- United States v. Harwood, 998 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1993) (statements asserting factual whereabouts are hearsay and not salvaged by state-of-mind exception)