Criminal – Post-arrest interview statements – Hearsay

Listen to this article

Where a defendant’s post-arrest interview statements were excluded, there was no abuse of discretion in the lower court’s conclusion that the statements did not come within the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay.

Affirmed.

“Misael Fabian Medina challenges his convictions for attempted sex trafficking of a child and attempted coercion and enticement of a child to engage in prostitution. According to Medina, because of his limited English language skills, he did not understand that he was arranging to have sex with a child, rather than an adult. He argues that the district court prejudiced his defense at trial by improperly excluding an exculpatory out-of-court statement, which he asserts fell under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay. …

“Medina, who is a native Spanish speaker with limited English language skills, responded to an online advertisement for commercial sex in November 2022. After texting the phone number in the advertisement and coordinating a time, location, and price for the sex transaction, Medina drove to the appointed hotel — a Courtyard Marriott — with $200, his cell phone, and a box of Trojan-brand condoms. Meanwhile, federal agents were lying in wait at the meet-up spot. …

“When Medina was booked about thirty minutes after his arrest, an officer informed him in Spanish that he was charged with ‘paying for sex with a minor under fourteen years old.’ Medina responded, ‘with a minor under fourteen years old?’ The officer confirmed, ‘yes, sir’ and ‘those are the charges.’ Medina then replied that he ‘never, never spoke to any minor.’

“After another thirty minutes had elapsed, the officers initiated a post-arrest interview. During the interview, which was conducted in Spanish and lasted about four minutes, Medina told the officers that he believed he had arranged for sex with an adult woman and that he never would have shown up at the hotel had he believed that a minor would be involved. …

“Medina argues that the district court abused its discretion by excluding his post-arrest interview statements denying that he intended to have sex with a minor. Although he does not challenge the court’s conclusion that the statements were hearsay, he insists that the statements qualified as excited utterances under Rule 803(2), an exception to the hearsay rule. …

“Here, the district court determined that Medina was not under the influence of the startling event thirty minutes later, and Medina offers no sound basis to question this determination. … Medina learned that he was charged with a serious crime and then thirty minutes elapsed, providing him with both the time and the opportunity to prepare an explanation for his actions. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding, on these facts, that Medina could not invoke the Rule 803(2) exception because there was a strong possibility that his statements were ‘influenced by self-interest’ and ‘therefore rendered unreliable.’ …”

United States v. Medina (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-189-25) (23 pages) (Rikelman, J.) Appealed from a decision by Casper, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Jamesa J. Drake, with whom Drake Law LLC was on brief, for the defendant-appellant; Donald C. Lockhart, with whom Leah B. Foley was on brief, for the United States (Docket No. 24-1609) (Sept. 9, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.