## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Richard B. Hudson, Sr. on two federal counts arising from cocaine trafficking, along with several alleged co-conspirators, including Hudson’s brother, James Hudson.
- The government’s case relied heavily on cooperating witnesses, and Hudson’s defense strategy focused on attacking those witnesses’ credibility and motives.
- James Hudson testified for the government against Richard Hudson.
- To impeach James, Hudson sought to call a jail inmate who would testify that, while James was in pretrial custody, James said (1) Richard had “nothing to do with” drugs, and (2) James planned to testify falsely against Richard out of revenge stemming from a family dispute.
- Hudson did not confront James with the alleged jailhouse statement while James was on the stand, and did not ask James to admit, deny, or explain it during his testimony.
- The district court excluded the inmate’s proposed testimony, ruling it inadmissible hearsay.
- The jury convicted Hudson on both counts, and Hudson appealed, arguing that excluding the inmate’s impeachment testimony was reversible error.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred in excluding the jail inmate’s testimony offered to impeach James Hudson with an alleged prior inconsistent statement and alleged motive to fabricate, when James was not confronted with the statement during his testimony.
2. Whether, even if Federal Rule of Evidence 613(b) does not always require prior confrontation, the trial court may use its control over the order and mode of proof (including Rule 611(a)) to require such a foundation and exclude extrinsic impeachment evidence when that foundation is not laid.
3. Whether any erroneous exclusion of the impeachment evidence would warrant reversal or would be harmless in light of the trial record.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed Hudson’s convictions.
- The court held that the district judge did not commit reversible error by excluding the inmate’s testimony where the defense had not confronted James with the alleged statement while James was testifying.
- The court explained that trial judges have discretion to manage impeachment by prior inconsistent statements and may, in appropriate circumstances, insist on a foundation that gives the witness a fair chance to address the supposed inconsistency before extrinsic proof is introduced.
- The court also indicated that, in this setting, exclusion of the proposed impeachment evidence did not justify disturbing the jury’s verdicts.

## Legal Principles

- Extrinsic evidence of a witness’s prior inconsistent statement is generally admissible for impeachment only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and the opposing party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it. Fed. R. Evid. 613(b).
- Rule 613(b) is not a rigid command that confrontation must always come first; however, trial courts retain substantial discretion over the sequence and method of impeachment.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 611(a), the trial court may control the mode and order of examining witnesses and presenting evidence, and may require a “prior foundation” for extrinsic impeachment when the court concludes that approach is fair and efficient.
- Evidence offered to show a witness’s bias or motive to lie can be powerful impeachment, but it remains subject to ordinary trial-management limits, including the court’s authority to avoid confusion, unfair prejudice, or undue consumption of time.
- On appellate review of evidentiary rulings, the question is typically whether the trial court abused its discretion and, if an error occurred, whether the error affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

United States v. Hudson affirmed a cocaine-trafficking conviction where the defense sought to impeach the defendant’s brother with a jail inmate’s testimony about an alleged admission and revenge motive, but failed to confront the brother with the alleged statement while he testified; the First Circuit held the trial judge acted within his discretion to exclude the extrinsic impeachment evidence and found no basis to overturn the jury’s verdicts.


United States v. Hudson, 970 F.2d 948 (1992)