United States v. Ralston
Facts
At trial, the government presented testimony from the two charged victims, testimony from a jailhouse informant, evidence of Ralston's prior sexually related state convictions, prior-hearing testimony from J.W., and testimony from Ralston's ex-wife about accusations made in India and Ralston's responses. Several challenged matters were not objected to at trial, including portions of the government's questioning, closing argument, admission of J.W.'s prior testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds, and the district court's decision not to compel defense witness Thomas Johnson to testify after he invoked the Fifth Amendment. The district court gave curative or limiting instructions in response to some matters, including striking one question and answer and instructing the jury that the Indian women's statements were not admitted for their truth but only to explain M.W.'s later conversation with Ralston. Johnson had pending federal and state matters and stated he did not want to incriminate himself through testimony.
Issue
Whether the district court committed reversible error by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte in response to various instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, by allowing J.W.'s prior preliminary-hearing testimony to be read to the jury, by declining to compel Thomas Johnson to testify after he invoked the Fifth Amendment, and by admitting M.W.'s testimony recounting accusations made by the Indian housekeeper and her daughter for contextual purposes. The court also considered whether ineffective-assistance claims should be resolved on direct appeal.
Rule
Unpreserved claims are reviewed for plain error, requiring the defendant to show (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights; even then, relief is discretionary only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. A Confrontation Clause challenge to prior testimonial statements fails where the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine; a defendant who affirmatively concedes unavailability waives that issue. A defendant's compulsory-process right must yield to a witness's valid Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Out-of-court statements admitted only to provide context for admissible statements are not hearsay and do not violate the Confrontation Clause when accompanied by an appropriate limiting instruction.
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
Test yourself
On appeal, the defendant argues the judge should have declared a mistrial sua sponte. What is the strongest basis to reject that argument?