Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was convicted of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute. Defendant was a member of the New York City Police Department. Key evidence against Defendant involved an informant who would not testify at trial.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The hearsay rule cannot be circumvented by questioning a witness about one-half of his conversation regarding out of court statements offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
Because truth-telling provisions are used by the government primarily to bolster the credibility of a witness, the admission of testimony concerning such provisions before the credibility of a witness has been challenged runs afoul of the well established rules of evidence that absent an attack on the veracity of a witness, no evidence to bolster his credibility is admissible.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Was the testimony of Spinelli regarding what he told Cali inadmissible hearsay?
Held. Justice Waterman held for the United States Second Court of Appeals that much of Spinelli’s testimony regarding his conversations with Cali were inadmissible hearsay and reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
Discussion. The jury learned from Spinelli that the Defendant money up front for the narcotics, that he kept the narcotics at his house, was supposed to arrive at the meeting with a ounce of cocaine, and when he would produce the cocaine. The statements of Spinelli were being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The prosecution was clearly trying to incorporate statements by Cali even though he had refused to testify at trial.