## Facts

- An African-American couple, Ernest and Kemlyn Stringer, sought to purchase a home in Harper Woods, Michigan, using agent Steven Weiss; the seller’s agents were Kathy and Mike Martin.
- After the inspection contingency was satisfied and the buyers left, the agents remained at the property.
- Neighbors criticized the agents for facilitating the sale to an African-American family; soon after, Richard Vartanian approached and made racially charged statements in front of the agents.
- Evidence described Vartanian as threatening violence toward the Stringers and pressuring the agents, including conduct that intimidated Kathy Martin.
- The Stringers later obtained a civil judgment against Vartanian; at that civil trial, Weiss testified about the incident.
- Before the later federal criminal trial, Weiss died; the district court admitted Weiss’s prior civil-trial testimony as former testimony of an unavailable witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1).
- A jury convicted Vartanian of two counts under 42 U.S.C. § 3631 for interfering with fair-housing rights by threats of bodily injury and death, and he received a custodial sentence with home confinement and supervised release.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting Weiss’s prior civil-trial testimony at the criminal trial under Rule 804(b)(1) violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because the prior cross-examination allegedly lacked a similar motive.
2. Whether a federal criminal prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 3631 following a private civil judgment based on the same incident violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
3. Whether the evidence was insufficient for the § 3631 count tied to the homebuyers because the threats were not made directly to the Stringers.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentence.
- The court held that Weiss was unavailable due to death and that the prior civil testimony satisfied Rule 804(b)(1) because Vartanian previously had an opportunity and similar motive to cross-examine Weiss on the central factual dispute.
- The court held that the prior private civil judgment did not bar the federal criminal prosecution and thus did not violate double jeopardy.
- The court held the evidence sufficient for § 3631 because the threats were directed at the buyers’ race and housing decision and need not be delivered face-to-face to the targeted homebuyers.

## Legal Principles

- Former testimony of an unavailable witness may be admitted under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) when the party against whom it is offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding.
- The Confrontation Clause is satisfied by a prior adequate opportunity and similar motive for cross-examination; the prior proceeding need not involve identical parties, charges, or litigation stakes.
- The Double Jeopardy Clause bars multiple criminal prosecutions or punishments by the same sovereign for the same offense, but it does not bar a federal criminal prosecution following a private civil suit arising from the same facts.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 3631, threats intended to injure, intimidate, or interfere with housing rights because of race may support conviction even if communicated through intermediaries and not made directly to the targeted buyer, so long as they are directed at the buyer’s housing activity and interfere with protected rights.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld Vartanian’s fair-housing-threat convictions, ruling that admitting a deceased witness’s prior civil-trial testimony did not violate confrontation rights where the defendant previously had a similar motive and opportunity to cross-examine, that a prior private civil judgment posed no double-jeopardy bar, and that § 3631 does not require threats to be delivered directly to the homebuyers.


United States v. Vartanian, 245 F.3d 609 (6th Cir. 2001)