Exclusion of post-arrest statements upheld by 1st Circuit

Listen to this article

A U.S. District Court judge did not err in finding that a criminal defendant’s post-arrest interview statements were not admissible under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.

The defendant responded to an online ad for commercial sex in November 2022. After texting the phone number in the ad and coordinating a time, location and price for the sex transaction, the defendant drove to the appointed hotel — a Courtyard Marriott — with $200, his cellphone and a box of Trojan-brand condoms. When he arrived, he was placed under arrest.

When the defendant was booked after his arrest, an officer informed him that he was charged with “paying for sex with a minor under 14 years old.” After 30 minutes had elapsed, officers initiated a post-arrest interview. During the interview, the defendant 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.

The defendant was indicted for attempted sex trafficking of a child and attempted coercion and enticement of a child to engage in prostitution. He filed a motion seeking to admit his post-arrest interview statements that he did not intend to have sex with a minor. The trial judge concluded that the post-arrest interview statements did not qualify as excited utterances under Rule 803(2) of the Federal Rule of Evidence.

“We conclude that [the defendant] has not pointed to any abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis of the excited utterance rule,” Judge Julie Rikelman wrote for the three-judge 1st Circuit panel.

“Here, the district court determined that [the defendant] was not under the influence of the startling event thirty minutes later, and [the defendant] offers no sound basis to question this determination. … [The defendant] 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 [the defendant] 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,’” Rikelman stated.

The 23-page decision is United States v. Medina, Lawyers Weekly No. 01-189-25.

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.