Open App →
Home › Case briefs › Evidence

United States v. Reynolds

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983 · Evidence
715 F.2d 99 (3d Cir. 1983)
Updated
Evidencehearsayimplied assertionRule 801(c)codefendant statementjoint trialprejudicial joinderconfrontation

Facts

Postal inspectors were investigating thefts of checks from the mail and received a report that two men at a photo studio appeared not to know the name and number they wanted placed on a photo I.D. Inspectors observed Parran and Reynolds leave the studio together, converse, and look at a photo I.D. card; Reynolds then went into a bank and unsuccessfully tried to cash a check, after which he was arrested. As Parran approached after the arrest, inspectors testified that Reynolds said to Parran, "I didn't tell them anything about you." At the joint trial, the government introduced that statement against Parran as circumstantial evidence of conspiracy and joint participation in the substantive offenses.

Issue

Whether, at a joint trial, a codefendant's out-of-court statement to the defendant—"I didn't tell them anything about you"—was inadmissible hearsay when offered as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt through its implied assertion. If so, the court also had to decide whether admitting the statement was prejudicial reversible error.

Rule

A statement is hearsay under Rule 801(c) when its probative value depends on the truth of an express or implied assertion by an out-of-court declarant who is not subject to contemporaneous cross-examination. If the statement is offered not merely to show that it was uttered, but to prove an implied fact such as the defendant's participation in the crime, it is hearsay unless it falls within an exception.

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Philadelphia, Nora Kim and Devin Cole are tried together for passing forged payroll checks. A transit officer testifies that after Devin was detained, he looked at Nora and said, "Relax—I didn't mention your role." Devin does not testify.

The prosecution offers the statement against Nora to show she participated in the scheme. Under the governing rule, how should the court rule?

Explanation. A statement can be hearsay when offered to prove an implied assertion, not just an express one. Here, the statement matters only if the jury accepts the implied fact that Nora had a "role" to conceal. Because that inference depends on the truth of the implied assertion by an out-of-court declarant who is not subject to contemporaneous cross-examination, the statement is hearsay unless an exception applies.