United States v. Barrett

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1976 · Evidence

539 F.2d 244 (1st Cir. 1976)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceRule 404(b)Rule 403Rule 804(b)(3)Rule 613(b)statement against penal interestcorroborating circumstancesidentity

Facts

The government presented witnesses who placed Barrett at a house where the stolen stamp collection was appraised and negotiated for sale, and one witness testified that Barrett described bypassing the museum alarm and participating in the burglary. To support identity, the government also introduced testimony from Adams that Barrett was knowledgeable about burglar alarms and ohmmeters, though the court excluded more specific testimony about Barrett committing another alarm-related crime. Barrett sought to introduce testimony that deceased codefendant Ben Tilley had said Barrett was not involved and that Adams had later said Barrett was not involved, but the trial court excluded both. Barrett's defense theory was misidentification and that Adams, not Barrett, was the real culprit.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred by admitting testimony about Barrett's expertise with alarms as other-acts evidence, and by excluding defense evidence consisting of Tilley's out-of-court exculpatory statement under Rule 804(b)(3) and Adams's later inconsistent statements for impeachment under Rule 613(b). Also at issue was whether any exclusion affected substantial rights.

Rule

Evidence of other acts is admissible if relevant to a legitimate purpose such as identity and if its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Rules 404(b) and 403. Under Rule 804(b)(3), an exculpatory statement against penal interest requires a two-stage inquiry: the statement must first qualify as against the declarant's penal interest, and then corroborating circumstances must clearly indicate its trustworthiness. Under Rule 613(b), extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible so long as the witness is afforded an opportunity at some point to explain or deny it; a foundation on cross-examination is good practice but not an absolute prerequisite.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal prosecution in Maine for receiving and selling stolen rare watches, the government cannot prove who entered the jeweler's warehouse except that the thief disabled a motion-sensor system by taking electrical readings from a concealed panel. The government offers testimony from Nolan Price's former associate that Price had previously demonstrated detailed knowledge of how to measure current in similar alarm circuits and identify which wires could be bypassed.

Is the testimony most likely admissible?

Explanation. The majority held that evidence of specialized alarm expertise could be admitted for the legitimate non-propensity purpose of identity when the crime required unusual technical skill. Even though the defendant was not charged with the break-in itself, the burglary and later disposition of the stolen goods were closely related parts of the same scheme. Admissibility still depends on Rule 403 balancing, not automatic admission.