United States v. Murphy

MEMORANDUM **

1. The district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow the defense to introduce evidence that F.J.T., a female juvenile, had identified a “fat Mexican man” (i.e., not the defendant) as the person who concealed her in the defendant’s van to be smuggled into the United States. The district court held that F.J.T.’s prior declaration to Inspector Gale as to who put her in the van was not admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(C) because it was not made under oath. But Rule 801(d)(1)(C) does not require that the prior identification be under oath, only that the declarant testify at trial, which she did. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)— (d)(1)(C). Because the district court misinterpreted Rule 801, it abused its discretion. See Stock West Corp. v. Taylor, 942 F.2d 655, 663 (9th Cir.1991).

At trial, Murphy testified that he did not know that F.J.T. was concealed in the van. Because F.J.T. was hidden so artfully that even border control agents did not detect her presence until two days after the van was seized, and because she allegedly identified someone other than the defendant as the person who concealed her in the van’s hidden compartment, “[w]e cannot…