## Facts

- The United States prosecuted Jay E. Lentz for the disappearance and death of his ex-wife, Doris Lentz, charging federal kidnapping resulting in death under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1).
- Doris disappeared in April 1996 and could not be located to testify at trial.
- Before trial, the government sought to introduce many out-of-court statements Doris made to friends, relatives, clergy, and others.
- The proffered statements generally fell into three groupings: (1) accounts of prior abuse and threats by Lentz, (2) expressions of fear of Lentz, and (3) statements of intent and plans on the day/night she disappeared (including that she planned to meet Lentz or go to his residence).
- The government argued the statements were admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(1) (present sense impression), 803(2) (excited utterance), and 803(3) (then-existing state of mind), and also argued that Lentz forfeited hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections because he procured Doris’s unavailability by killing her.
- Lentz objected that the statements were hearsay, that many were retrospective narratives about past events rather than admissible state-of-mind evidence, and that admitting them would be unfairly prejudicial and inconsistent with confrontation rights.
- The district court addressed admissibility in a detailed, statement-by-statement manner as part of pretrial motions in limine.

## Issues

1. Which of Doris Lentz’s out-of-court statements were admissible, if at all, under Rules 803(1), 803(2), or 803(3), given the timing and content of the statements?
2. May the government rely on forfeiture by wrongdoing to admit Doris’s hearsay statements over hearsay and Confrontation Clause objections if it proves Lentz wrongfully caused her unavailability?
3. Even if a statement fits a hearsay exception, should it be excluded or limited under Rule 403 because it risks being used as proof of Lentz’s alleged past misconduct rather than for a proper evidentiary purpose?

## Decision

- The court granted and denied the parties’ evidentiary motions in part, admitting only a narrower set of Doris’s statements and excluding many others.
- The court applied Rules 803(1) and 803(2) strictly and excluded many statements that were not truly contemporaneous descriptions or stress-driven reactions to a startling event.
- The court found that many proffered statements about prior abuse were retrospective narratives offered to prove past acts and therefore did not qualify under Rule 803(3)’s state-of-mind exception.
- The court was more receptive to statements reflecting Doris’s then-existing intent and plans in April 1996 (including plans related to meeting Lentz), because such intent statements can be relevant to whether she acted consistently with that intent.
- The court recognized forfeiture by wrongdoing in principle: if the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Lentz wrongfully caused Doris’s unavailability, Lentz would forfeit confrontation and related hearsay objections to appropriate statements.
- Even where an exception (or forfeiture) could apply, the court emphasized continuing limits based on relevance and Rule 403, aiming to prevent the trial from being dominated by hearsay accounts of alleged prior bad acts.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 803(1) (present sense impression) covers statements describing an event made while perceiving it or immediately afterward; the timing requirement is demanding.
- Rule 803(2) (excited utterance) requires a startling event and a statement made while the declarant remains under the stress of that event; reflective narratives made later generally do not qualify.
- Rule 803(3) permits statements of then-existing state of mind (such as fear, intent, or plan) but excludes statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered (e.g., “he abused me last year” offered to prove the abuse occurred).
- A declarant’s statement of intent may be admissible as circumstantial evidence that the declarant later acted in accordance with that intent.
- Forfeiture by wrongdoing can remove Confrontation Clause and hearsay objections when the defendant wrongfully causes the witness’s unavailability, typically requiring proof of causation and a wrongful procurement of absence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Rule 403 remains applicable to hearsay admitted under an exception or forfeiture; courts may exclude or narrow evidence if the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or cumulative presentation substantially outweighs probative value.

## Conclusion

United States v. Lentz is a pretrial evidentiary decision in which the district court tightly limited the government’s proposed use of the missing victim’s hearsay statements under Rules 803(1)–(3), excluding many retrospective accounts of alleged prior abuse while allowing a more limited set of statements—especially those showing then-existing intent and plans around the time of the disappearance—and it recognized forfeiture by wrongdoing as a potential basis to overcome hearsay and confrontation objections upon the government’s required showing.


United States v. Lentz, 282 F. Supp. 2d 399 (2002)