## Facts

- Marcus Neadeau was arrested and federally prosecuted for participating in a cocaine-distribution conspiracy, including allegations involving at least 50 grams of crack cocaine and at least 500 grams of powder cocaine.
- Before trial, the district court held a detention hearing to determine whether Neadeau would be detained pending trial.
- At that detention hearing, Neadeau’s wife, Vanessa Sagataw, testified on his behalf.
- After the detention hearing, Sagataw was indicted in the same investigation and tried jointly with Neadeau as a co-defendant.
- At the joint trial, Sagataw invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege and did not testify.
- Over Neadeau’s objection, the district court admitted portions of Sagataw’s earlier detention-hearing testimony against Neadeau, reasoning that the testimony could be used as a “prior inconsistent statement.”
- The jury convicted Neadeau, and he appealed, arguing that admitting Sagataw’s detention-hearing testimony as substantive evidence against him violated the hearsay rules (and, by implication, the limits on using testimonial statements when the declarant does not testify at trial).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting a non-testifying co-defendant’s detention-hearing testimony against the defendant at a joint trial as a “prior inconsistent statement” offered for its truth.
2. If the admission was error, whether the error was harmless in light of the remaining evidence of guilt.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit held the district court erred by admitting Sagataw’s detention-hearing testimony as substantive evidence against Neadeau.
- The court reasoned that the “prior inconsistent statement” exclusion from hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(A) did not apply because Sagataw did not testify at trial and therefore was not subject to cross-examination about the statement.
- The court also concluded the detention-hearing testimony was not saved by another hearsay exception on the record presented (including the “former testimony” exception), because the conditions for those exceptions were not met when the testimony was offered against Neadeau.
- The court nonetheless affirmed Neadeau’s conviction because, considering the totality of the trial record, the erroneous admission did not affect the verdict and was harmless.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of what it asserts is hearsay and is inadmissible unless a rule excludes it from hearsay or an exception applies. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802.
- A prior inconsistent statement is admissible for its truth under Rule 801(d)(1)(A) only if the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination about the prior statement; if the declarant refuses to testify by invoking the Fifth Amendment, that requirement is not satisfied.
- Testimony from an earlier proceeding may qualify as “former testimony” under Rule 804(b)(1) only when the party against whom it is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross-, or redirect examination; those conditions are not met simply because the testimony was given under oath at an earlier hearing.
- Even when an evidentiary ruling is wrong, a conviction will be affirmed if the reviewing court concludes the error did not substantially influence the verdict (harmless error). See Fed. R. Crim. P. 52(a).

## Conclusion

United States v. Neadeau holds that a co-defendant’s detention-hearing testimony cannot be admitted for its truth at a joint trial as a “prior inconsistent statement” when the co-defendant invokes the Fifth Amendment and does not testify, because Rule 801(d)(1)(A) requires trial testimony and an opportunity for cross-examination about the prior statement. The Eighth Circuit found the admission improper but affirmed the conviction after deciding the mistake did not affect the outcome given the other evidence presented at trial.


United States v. Neadeau, 639 F.3d 453 (2011)