United States v. Robert Joseph Satterfield

572 F.2d 687 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 358 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Joseph SATTERFIELD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 77-2354. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 22, 1978. 1 Stephen A. Houze (argued), of Portland, Or., for defendant-appellant. 2 Jack C. Wong, Asst. U. S. Atty., Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. 4 Before WRIGHT and SNEED, Circuit Judges, and RENFREW, * District Judge. RENFREW, District Judge: 5 Satterfield appeals from his convictions for bank robbery and associated firearms violations. 6 On October 9, 1974, a grand jury returned a ten-count indictment charging Satterfield and Merriweather with several bank robberies and firearms violations. Counts V and VII (the bank robbery counts) charged Satterfield with robbing two Oregon banks with Merriweather in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), and Counts VI and VIII (the firearms counts) charged him with aiding and abetting Merriweather in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), which makes it unlawful to "carr(y) a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any felony for which (the defendant)…

Satterfield appeals from his convictions for bank robbery and associated firearms violations.

On October 9,1974, a grand jury returned a ten-count indictment charging Satterfield and Merriweather with several bank robberies and firearms violations. Counts V and VII (the bank robbery counts) charged Satterfield with robbing two Oregon banks with Merriweather in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), and Counts VI and VIII (the firearms counts) charged him with aiding and abetting Merriweather in violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), which makes it unlawful to “carr[y] a firearm unlawfully during the commission of any felony for which [the defendant] may be prosecuted in a court of the United States.” The other counts involved bank robberies and firearms violations which Merriweather committed by himself.

Merriweather and Satterfield were tried together and convicted on all counts, and both appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed Merriweather’s convictions, United States v. Merriweather, 551 F.2d 314 (9 Cir. 1977), rejecting, inter alia, Merriweather’s challenge to the requirement that he wear disguises before the jury. Satterfield’s convictions were reversed…

(concurring in result).

The opinion of the court avoids deciding whether the untrustworthiness of a witness can be considered by the judge in determining whether to exclude a hearsay statement pursuant to the last sentence of Rule 804(b)(3), Fed.R.Evid. This was accomplished by explicitly assuming that Rosales and Barron heard Merriweather make the statements about which they testified and that their testimony accurately reflected what they heard. This assumption is not consistent with the Government’s evidence that the prison staff reported no argument between Satterfield and Merriweather which Rosales and Barron testified they overheard.

This inconsistency strongly suggests to me that we should decide, rather than avoid, the issue about which there is a split of authority within the circuits. Were we to so decide, I would hold that the trial judge in applying the last sentence of Rule 804(b)(3) could evaluate the trustworthiness of a witness to the alleged statement which tended to expose the declarant to criminal liability. This evaluation, I suggest, should be made cautiously and with full awareness of the defendant’s constitutional right to present witnesses in his behalf.…