## Facts

- Two men robbed the Brookland Station Post Office in Washington, D.C. on March 5, 1980, forcing entry at gunpoint, opening safes, and taking cash, a money order machine, a validating plate, and 97 money orders.
- John T. Livingston and David Coyle were indicted on June 3, 1980, for armed robbery of a post office and possession of stolen United States money orders.
- The prosecution introduced evidence about the robbery and evidence about cashing and attempted cashing of the stolen money orders in Philadelphia and Trenton about a week later.
- The two strands of proof were linked primarily through testimony from three women who knew Livingston and Coyle and traveled with them to Philadelphia and Trenton shortly after the robbery.
- Before trial, each woman gave at least one statement to postal inspectors; at trial, their testimony differed in material ways from some prior statements.
- The defense presented no evidence.
- A jury convicted both defendants of armed robbery, and each received a 25-year sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s jury instructions improperly allowed jurors to treat witnesses’ prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence of guilt, rather than limiting their use to impeachment unless FRE 801(d)(1)(A) was satisfied.
2. Whether any instructional error regarding the use of prior inconsistent statements was harmless given the government’s reliance on the witnesses and their prior accounts.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the jury was improperly instructed on the permissible use of prior inconsistent statements.
- The court concluded the error was prejudicial and did not address other appellate claims.

## Legal Principles

- Under FRE 801(d)(1)(A), a prior inconsistent statement may be treated as non-hearsay substantive evidence only if the declarant testifies and is subject to cross-examination and the statement was made under oath in a trial, hearing, other proceeding, or deposition.
- Prior inconsistent statements that do not satisfy FRE 801(d)(1)(A) may be admitted for impeachment but may not be used to prove the truth of the matters asserted.
- Jury instructions must clearly distinguish impeachment-only use from substantive use; failure to do so can be reversible error when the prosecution’s case depends materially on the prior statements.

## Conclusion

Because the jury instructions effectively permitted substantive consideration of prior inconsistent statements beyond the limits of FRE 801(d)(1)(A), and the government’s proof depended heavily on those statements, the convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.


United States v. Livingston, 661 F.2d 239 (D.C. Cir. 1981)