## Facts

- On the Cherry Creek Indian Reservation in South Dakota, Jules Uses Many was attacked at night by “four or five people” with a baseball bat and suffered serious injuries.
- Uses Many identified Karsten Buffalo as one of the assailants; the prosecution argued the attack was retaliation for Uses Many’s BB-gun shooting of Buffalo the prior night.
- Buffalo denied involvement and asserted alibi/mistaken identity, arguing Rodney “Rocky” Hayes (who had prior conflicts with Uses Many) committed the assault.
- While detained pretrial, Buffalo’s cellmates, Chastyn Waloke and Justin Romero, allegedly heard Hayes confess that he attacked Uses Many on the night in question.
- Buffalo sought to introduce Waloke’s and Romero’s testimony about Hayes’s confession as a statement against penal interest under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), asserting Hayes was unavailable because he had not been located and was not expected to testify.
- The district court indicated that if Buffalo called Hayes, it would not allow the cellmates’ confession testimony, reasoning the defense might use Hayes as a pretext to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay as impeachment.
- Buffalo called Hayes; Hayes denied participating, testifying he only said he wished he had helped.
- A jury convicted Buffalo of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153, 113(a)(3), and 113(a)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding testimony that Hayes confessed to the assault when offered as a statement against penal interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3).
2. Whether limiting defense questioning about the victim’s prior fights improperly restricted cross-examination relevant to bias and third-party guilt.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion in handling the proffered third-party confession evidence, applying hearsay and impeachment concerns in a manner that improperly blocked evidence central to Buffalo’s defense.
- The court rejected the contention that a confession by another participant was necessarily irrelevant because the attack involved multiple assailants; the confession could still support reasonable doubt about Buffalo’s identity as an attacker.
- The error was not harmless because identity was the central disputed issue and the excluded evidence went to the heart of the defense.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3), a statement that is genuinely against the declarant’s penal interest may be admissible when the declarant is unavailable and the statement is sufficiently reliable.
- A trial court may not apply hearsay and impeachment rules mechanically to exclude highly probative third-party guilt evidence where identity is contested and the evidence is central to the defense.
- Evidence suggesting another person committed the offense can be relevant even if the crime involved multiple participants, because it may materially support mistaken-identity or alibi theories.
- When exclusion of defense evidence substantially impairs the ability to present a defense on a key issue, and the government’s proof is not overwhelming, the error may require a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district court’s exclusion of alleged third-party confession testimony improperly curtailed Buffalo’s ability to present his mistaken-identity defense, and the error was not harmless given the case’s focus on who participated in the assault.


United States v. Buffalo, 358 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 2004)