Case Brief: United States v. Morgan, 581 F.2d 933

	studentJD
	Students Helping Students	Currently Briefing & Updating

Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission.
In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied."
The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability."

Back To Evidence Briefs

United States v. Morgan, 581 F.2d 933

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

1978

Chapter	6	Title	Hearsay
Page	189	Topic	Hearsay Exceptions, Informant statements in affidavit.
Quick Notes	Officers obtained a warrant to search for illegal drugs in a house. The warrant was issued upon the affidavit of Detective Mathis, stating that a reliable informant had advised him person and known as "Timmy," was selling drugs from inside the house. Trial judge excluded statements made by the informant that were contained in the affidavit. 801(d)(2)(B) (d) Statements which are not hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if-- o (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party AND is o (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or Courts Rule Objection is sustained, IF government believes sworn affidavit o We decide only that where the government has indicated in a sworn affidavit to a judicial officer that it believes particular statements are trustworthy, it may not sustain an objection to the subsequent introduction of those statements on grounds that they are hearsay.
Book Name	Evidence: A Contemporary Approach. Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves. ISBN: 978-0-314-19105-2.

Issue

o Whether adopted statements in the affidavit are hearsay? No.

Procedure
Trial	o The trial judge excluded this evidence on grounds that it was irrelevant and was hearsay
Appellant	o The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the evidence should have been admitted.
Supreme	o The court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial.

Facts

Discussion

Key Phrases

Rules

Pl United States

Df Morgan

Guilty of Drug Posession

o Appellant, William Morgan, was found guilty by a jury of possessing phenmetrazine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a) (1970).

Appellate Trial Judge Erred

o We agree with his contention that the trial judge erred in excluding certain evidence from the jury.

Warrant to Search house for Drugs

o Officers obtained a warrant to search for illegal drugs in a single-family dwelling in Northwest Washington, D.C.

o The warrant was issued upon the affidavit of Detective Mathis, stating that a reliable informant had advised him person and known as "Timmy," was selling drugs from inside the house;

Controlled Buy

o The informant made a "controlled" buy;

o The informant handed Mathis some pink pills,

Informant said he purposed pills from Timmy

o Later identified as phenmetrazine; and that the informant said he had purchased these pills from Timmy.

Executing the Warrant

o Arrived at the house at 10 p.m.

o They did not find Timmy

o However, the appellant and four other persons in the front hallway.

Snarling German Shepherd

o Appellant was holding the leash on a snarling German shepherd.

Appellant Tried to smash pills on the floor

o According to the officers, appellant immediately reached in his pocket with his free hand, grabbed some pink pills, threw them on the floor, and started to mash them with his foot.

Recovered 12 Pills

o Detective Mathis managed to recover intact twelve of the pills,

o Determined to be phenmetrazine.

Basement Seizure

Found 77 more pills and cash

o Found seventy-seven additional such pills and $ 30 cash, found in a shaving kit secreted in a hole in the ceiling, Tr. 17; $ 4,280 cash, found in a fuse box, Tr. 42; $ 410 cash.

Found Birth Certificate

o Found in a dresser drawer the birth certificate of a Kelsey Etheridge,

No Fingerprints were taken

o No fingerprints were taken because the appellant, at least six other persons were in the house when the police arrived.

Government At Trial

o Sought to connect appellant to the 77 pills and $ 4,280 cash

Mrs. McKnight

o Owner of the house.

o She knew appellant for 2 years.

o He came over to feed and exercise her dog because he was not afraid of it.

o Etheridge had used the basement bathroom, no one had lived in the basement since October 1976.

Appellant

o Said he with to Mrs. McKnights house to invite one of the occupants to a party.

o He denied dropping the drugs.

o Claimed to have no knowledge of the drugs or money found in the basement.

o He admitted to taking care of the dog and entered the basement every other day.

Defense counsel Sought to establish

o Three times during the trial defense counsel sought to establish that Timmy, Mrs. McKnight's son, lived in the house and was selling drugs.

Defense counsel proffered statement made by informant

o Counsel proffered as evidence of this fact the statements made by the informant to Detective Mathis that are contained in the affidavit supporting the search warrant.

Trial Judge Excluded because it was hearsay.

o The trial judge excluded this evidence on grounds that it was irrelevant and was hearsay

Morgan Arg statements were relevant and not hearsay

o The informant's statements were neither (a) irrelevant nor (b) hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence, and that their exclusion was highly prejudicial.

Hearsay Discussion

801(d)(2)(B)

(d) Statements which are not hearsay.

A statement is not hearsay if--

o (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party AND is

o (B) a statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth, or

In this case

o This Rule plainly applies to the informant's statements to Detective Mathis.

o The government manifested its belief in the truth of the informant's statements about Timmy by characterizing them as "reliable" in a sworn affidavit to a United States Magistrate

Court Notes

o The Federal Rules clearly contemplate that the federal government is a party-opponent of the defendant in criminal cases.

o The Federal Rules specifically provide that in certain circumstances statements made by government agents are admissible against the government as substantive evidence

Court Statements which the court adopts are more solid

o Statements in which the government has manifested its "adoption or belief" stand on more solid ground than mere out-of-court assertions by a government agent.

Court Not just any statement is admissible against the government

o We do not decide that just Any statement the informant might have made is admissible against the government.

Courts Rule Objection is sustained, IF government believes sworn affidavit

o We decide only that where the government has indicated in a sworn affidavit to a judicial officer that it believes particular statements are trustworthy, it may not sustain an objection to the subsequent introduction of those statements on grounds that they are hearsay.

Court - Holding