## Facts

- Theodore D. Morlang was indicted in federal court on charges arising from an FHA-insured housing project in West Virginia, including a conspiracy to bribe an FHA official (18 U.S.C. § 371) and multiple substantive counts.
- Before trial, several counts were dismissed; at trial Morlang was acquitted on remaining substantive bribery counts but convicted by a jury on the conspiracy count.
- The alleged scheme involved Morlang and others purportedly conspiring to bribe James F. Haught, a West Virginia FHA official, to obtain favorable treatment for the “Hanna Drive” development.
- The government called Fred Wilmoth, an alleged co-conspirator, as a witness; prior to trial Wilmoth told the prosecutor he would not testify that Morlang admitted any bribery scheme to him.
- At trial, Wilmoth denied that Morlang made any incriminating admission.
- The government then called Raymond Crist, Wilmoth’s former cellmate, who testified that Wilmoth had previously told him that Morlang admitted the bribery scheme.
- The district court admitted Crist’s testimony only for impeachment of Wilmoth and instructed the jury it could not consider the statement as substantive proof of Morlang’s guilt.
- The government also used Wilmoth’s grand jury testimony in a manner that elicited conclusion-type statements about Morlang’s relationship with an alleged accomplice.
- The trial court instructed the jury on broad FHA employee “standards of conduct” relating to Haught’s duties.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution may call a witness it knows will not provide inculpatory testimony in order to impeach that witness with a prior statement that implies the defendant’s guilt, thereby placing inadmissible hearsay before the jury.
2. Whether the government improperly used a witness’s grand jury testimony to elicit conclusion-based testimony about the defendant’s relationship with an alleged accomplice.
3. Whether jury instructions describing general ethical standards for an FHA employee were misleading by suggesting conviction could rest on vague conduct norms rather than statutory elements.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed Morlang’s conspiracy conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held it was improper for the government to call Wilmoth with advance knowledge he would deny an alleged admission, and then use impeachment to present Crist’s hearsay account of Morlang’s supposed confession.
- The court reasoned that, despite a limiting instruction, a statement directly asserting guilt carries strong substantive force that jurors are unlikely to confine to credibility assessment.
- The court also identified additional trial error concerns, including the use of grand jury material to elicit conclusions and overbroad instructions on FHA conduct standards, which reinforced the need for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A party may not call a witness it expects to provide adverse testimony on a central point solely to introduce otherwise inadmissible hearsay through “impeachment.”
- Impeachment evidence that directly implies a defendant’s guilt presents a high risk that the jury will treat it as substantive proof, even when admitted with a limiting instruction.
- Trial courts must avoid allowing examination techniques that use prior testimony (including grand jury testimony) to inject conclusion-laden assertions beyond proper impeachment or admissible substantive evidence.
- Jury instructions must focus the jury on statutory elements of the charged offenses and should not invite conviction based on generalized ethical standards untethered to those elements.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because the prosecution used impeachment as a vehicle to place an out-of-court accusation of guilt before the jury that was not admissible substantively, and the trial was further affected by evidentiary and instructional errors warranting a new trial.


United States v. Morlang, 531 F.2d 183 (4th Cir. 1975)