Summary
The Eighth Circuit held that statements made by a cooperating witness during a government preparation session were admissible extrinsic evidence of the witness's bias and credibility. Because the witness's testimony was important to the government's case and the evidentiary error was not harmless, the court reversed the defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether statements made by a cooperating witness during a government witness-preparation session were admissible extrinsic evidence of the witness's bias and credibility.
- Whether exclusion of the statements was harmless error.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Agbaje's aiding-and-abetting mail-fraud and wire-fraud convictions.
- Whether the district court's ruling implicated the Confrontation Clause.
Holdings
- Statements made by the government's cooperating witness during the preparation session were admissible and highly probative extrinsic evidence of the witness's bias toward the government and against Agbaje.
- The exclusion of the statements was not harmless because Etue's testimony and credibility were important to the government's case, and the court could not say with fair assurance that the exclusion had no more than a slight influence on the verdict.
- The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find Agbaje guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of aiding and abetting mail fraud and wire fraud.
Key quotations
“Etue’s statements during the preparation session were admissible and highly probative of Etue’s bias toward the government and against Agbaje.” (at 5)
“Regardless of its propriety, the government’s exchange with Etue was admissible as extrinsic evidence, Johnson, 521 F.2d at 562 & n.13, because it was probative of Etue’s bias and “[t]he partiality of a witness . . . is ‘always relevant . . . .’”” (at 5)
“Since Etue’s testimony and credibility were key to proving the government’s case, we cannot say “with fair assurance” that excluding highly probative evidence of Etue’s bias had no more than a slight influence on the verdict.” (at 6)
Factual background
An imposter induced a North Dakota law firm to deposit a fraudulent $198,850 check and wire $198,336.68 to an account opened by Ome Etue in the name of an entity associated with Agbaje. Etue transferred $180,000 to a Danish account and later cooperated with the government under an agreement that resulted in dismissal of his charges after probation. During a recorded government preparation session, Etue reacted strongly to the prosecutor's theory and evidence, making statements that could suggest the government had given him a way to blame Agbaje and that Etue had a motive to testify against him.
Procedural history
A jury convicted Agbaje of money laundering and aiding and abetting mail fraud and wire fraud. The district court excluded recorded statements from the government's preparation session with cooperating witness Ome Etue, denied reconsideration, and denied Agbaje's motion for a new trial. The Eighth Circuit held that the statements were admissible impeachment evidence, that their exclusion was not harmless, reversed the convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
The convictions are reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial.