Truman/False Man

United States v. Truman, Sr., No. 11-784-cr (2d Cir. 2012) (Livingston, Lohier, CJJ, Rakoff, DJ)

Jeffrey Truman, Sr., recruited his son, Jeffrey Truman, Jr., to burn down a building that Truman Sr. owned in Oneida, New York.  The was in dire financial straits and the property had a very large insurance policy.

Truman Sr.’s odyssey through the legal system began in state court, where he was tried on arson and fraud charges. That case was dismissed because the state court could not corroborate Jr.’s testimony, as required under state law.

The feds then took up the case, which went to trial after Jr. signed a cooperation agreement. At trial, however, Jr. balked. While he described his own role in setting the fire, he steadfastly refused to implicate his father.  This prompted the government to introduce, over objection, portions of Jr.’s testimony from Sr.’s state court trial, in which Jr. confirmed that his father had asked him to start the fire.

Other evidence against Sr. included evidence that suggested that Sr. had tried to cover up the crime in various ways, and evidence of his financial problems and the degree to which the property was insured.

The defense case included some evidence that Jr. had recanted his testimony against Sr., including an assertion by a lawyer involved in a civil case between Sr. and the insurance company that Jr. had told him that his previous statements “blaming his father” were untrue. 

Sr. testified in his own defense and denied any role in the arson or the insurance fraud. For some reason, the AUSA’s approach to cross-examination was to repeatedly ask him whether other witnesses’ statements at the trial, including those by a police officer, were true or untrue.

Sr. was convicted, but persuaded the district judge to grant his Rule 29 motion, and a conditional new trial under Rule 33(a). The court concluded that Jr.’s testimony was incredible as a matter of law and that the remaining circumstantial evidence was insufficient.  The conditional new trial was based on the court’s conclusions that: (1) that Jr.’s “patently incredible” testimony was an exceptional circumstances that warranted a new trial; (2) it had erred in introducing Jr.’s state court testimony and; (3) the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct.

On this, the government’s appeal, the circuit reversed. The factors identified by the district court in discrediting Jr. “surely impaired” his credibility but did not render his testimony incredible as a matter of law for the purposes of Rule 29. Morever, the remaining evidence, even absent Jr.’s testimony, was itself legally sufficient.

Nor was there a basis for a new trial. For the same reasons identified above, Jr.’s suspect credibility did not warrant a new trial. In addition, there was no error in admitting Jr.’s state court testimony, which was clearly covered by Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(A), under which a reluctant trial witness can be impeached with a prior inconsistent statement. Finally, the prosecutorial misconduct -did not warrant a new trial. While it was improper for the government to cross-examine Sr. about whether other witnesses were “liars,” this not prejudicial. The questions were irrelevant to the central issue of Sr.’s own credibility and to the “other compelling evidence of guilt admitted at trial.”

Jailhouse Rock

United States v. Cote, No. 07-1852 (2d. Cir. September 24, 2008) (Pooler, Sotomayor, CJJ, Restani, JCIT)

Paul Cote was a prison guard at the Westchester County jail. On October 10, 2000, during an altercation, Cote repeatedly punched and stomped on an inmate’s head while the inmate lay on the floor. The inmate never regained consciousness and died about fourteen months later, in December of 2001.

Background

Cote was originally tried in state court, before the inmate died; he was acquitted of first-degree assault, and convicted of a lesser offense, second-degree assault. Hewas sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

Subsequently, Cote’s counsel learned of a federal civil rights investigation into the incident. The feds moved quite slowly and, nearly five years after the event, notified counsel that an indictment was forthcoming. Counsel wanted time to persuade the government not to pursue the case; on counsel’s advice, Cote executed an agreement tolling the statute of limitations for ninety days. The government, on its part, agreed not to seek a “death resulted” indictment, which would have carried a maximum period of imprisonment of life, or even the death penalty. As the negotiations wore on, they signed a second tolling agreement for another two months. Ultimately, however, counsel failed to dissuade the government. Cote was charged with with violating the inmate’s civil rights under color of law, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242.

The Trial

At trial, the government called several eyewitnesses: another prison guard and three inmates. There was also medical evidence describing the extensive trauma that the inmate suffered to his face and head. He received multiple blows, at least some of which required the application of significant force.

The defense called two competing medical experts, who opined that all of the inmate's injuries had been caused by a different guard, who had pushed the inmate onto the concrete floor before Cote arrived.

Post-Verdict Rulings

The jury convicted Cote, but the district court granted his post-verdict Rule 29 and Rule 33 motions.

For the Rule 29 motion, the bulk of the district court’s ruling rested on its view that the testimony implicating Cote was incredible. The court felt that the inmate witnesses had exaggerated their accounts out of vindictiveness, and that the testimony of the other guard was suspect, perhaps as an effort to deflect suspicion from himself. Finally, the court held that there was insufficient evidence that Cote acted with the requisite intent. It noted that the state court “got it right” by finding that Cote acted recklessly, not intentionally.

Alternatively, the district court granted a new trial under Rule 33, for the same reasons. It also sua sponte concluded that the jury had not been properly charged on intent, and that the tolling agreement was involuntary.

The Appeal

On this, the government’s appeal, the circuit reversed. As to the Rule 29 motion, the court agreed with the government that the evidence was sufficient. None of the inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts rendered the testimony incredible as a matter of law. Indeed, “the jury was entitled to reject the extreme of the testimony and conclude that the truth law somewhere in between.”

Moreover, under Rule 29, the court must “give full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, and must draw all possible inferences in favor of the government.” Thus, the court was “not entitled to reject the bulk of the government’s evidence as not credible for purposes of granting” the Rule 29 motion.

The circuit also found that the district court erred in finding insufficient evidence of specific intent. Here, the nature of the force itself, Cote’s efforts to falsify an incident report and induce others to do so, and the words Cote used as he beat the inmate - a warning not to disrespect corrections officers - all entitled the jury to find that Cote acted with the requisite intent.

The circuit likewise reversed the new trial grant under Rule 33, finding that the court abused its discretion. Here, the discrepancies in the testimony were fairly minor, and did not warrant a new trial. Nor was the district court correct that the jury was improperly instructed on intent, or that the tolling agreement was coerced.