District Courts Excluded Testimony
Excluded of the testimony of two
defense remaining witnesses.
- District Court Erred
Exclusions were in error.
Delaney conversation with Buzzy Adams Government Objected
Delaney stated that he met with
Buzzy Adams in or around November, in a Boston area restaurant.
He was then asked to relate their
The Government objected.
Adams said Barrett was not involved
Barrett offered to prove that "Adams
said that he had heard that Barrett had been
indicted, or had gotten into trouble on this matter, and that it
was too bad because he,
Buzzy, knew that Barrett was not involved."
Kelly overheard Adams that Buckey (Barrett) did not have
anything to do with it.
Kelley, a waitress, was prepared to
testify that, while waiting on Adams and Delaney at the same
restaurant, she overheard
Adams say "it was a shame that Bucky got arrested on
this matter because he
(Adams) "knew that Bucky didn't have anything to do with it."
Barrett Concedes this evidence was hearsay
Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1), and so
inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Barrett Argues Prior inconsistent statement
It was admissible as a
prior inconsistent statement
to impeach Adams' credibility.
that Barrett admitted to him shortly
after his arrest that he had been involved in the
Barrett contends subsequent statement to Delaney was
Barrett contends that Adams'
to Delaney in November, 1974, that Barrett was not involved, was
so admissible to impeach his
The Government now argues,
Adams' purported opinion was too
vague and unsupported to be useful.
Court Statement to Delaney was clearly inconsistent
The statement to Delaney, therefore,
made supposedly in November, 1974, was clearly inconsistent.
Prior Inconsistent Statement
To be received as a prior
inconsistent statement, the contradiction need not be "in plain
It is enough if the proffered
testimony, taken as a whole, either by what it says or by what
it omits to say, affords
some indication that the fact was different from the testimony
of the witness whom it is sought to contradict."
Adams believe Bucky was not involved is immaterial
Furthermore, the fact that Adams'
belief that Bucky was not involved might be called an "opinion"
Important Point - Incompatibility
The important point is the clear
incompatibility between Adams' direct testimony and the alleged
Vacated and Remanded.