## Facts

- An Illinois state trooper stopped a northbound semi on I-55 for a motor carrier safety violation; Juan Garcia was driving.
- Garcia could not produce a logbook or bills of lading; the trooper learned there was a co-driver, Wilfredo Torres.
- Garcia consented to a search of the cab for the logbook; the trooper detected a strong odor of marijuana and observed four suitcases in the sleeper area.
- The suitcases contained about 260 pounds of marijuana; Garcia and Torres were arrested.
- Torres repeatedly stated in a post-arrest confession and later proceedings that the marijuana was his alone and that Garcia did not know it was in the truck or that Torres intended to distribute it.
- Torres and Garcia were not friends; Garcia joined the trip after his own truck was in repair and the employer paired him with Torres.
- Torres pleaded guilty, refused to implicate others, and asserted the Fifth Amendment at Garcia’s trial.

## Issues

1. Whether Torres’s out-of-court statements exculpating Garcia were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) as statements against penal interest supported by corroborating circumstances clearly indicating trustworthiness.
2. Whether excluding those statements was prejudicial error requiring reversal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed Garcia’s conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- Torres was unavailable because he invoked the Fifth Amendment.
- Torres’s confession was against penal interest because it squarely admitted sole responsibility for a large quantity of marijuana and intent to distribute.
- The district court erred by excluding the exculpatory portion for lack of corroboration; corroborating circumstances sufficiently indicated trustworthiness.
- The error was not harmless because the excluded statements were central to Garcia’s lack-of-knowledge defense.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 804(b)(3), an unavailable declarant’s statement against penal interest may be admitted; when offered to exculpate an accused, it must be supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate trustworthiness.
- The corroboration requirement addresses reliability sufficient for jury consideration; it does not require the court to determine the statement is true.
- Trustworthiness may be shown by consistent self-inculpation over time, absence of an apparent motive to fabricate, limited relationship with the accused, and agreement between the confession’s self-inculpatory narrative and physical evidence.
- Excluding highly probative exculpatory hearsay from the only other principal participant can be reversible, non-harmless error when it undermines the defendant’s primary defense.

## Conclusion

The court held that Torres’s repeated confession and consistent exoneration of Garcia met Rule 804(b)(3)’s trustworthiness requirement, and that excluding those statements deprived the jury of critical evidence on knowledge, requiring a new trial.


United States v. Garcia, 986 F.2d 1135 (7th Cir. 1993)