United States v. Hsia, 87 F. Supp. 2d 10 (D.D.C. 2000)

*11 *12 Erica L. Yaffe, John McEnany, Campaign Financing Task Force, Criminal Division, Dept. of Judicial, Washington, DC, for government.

Nancy Luque, Reach Wallace, Andrei L. Hurst, Reed Forge Shaw & McClay, Washinton, DC, by defendant.

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, Quarter Judge.

This subject now is ahead the Food on (1) the government's beschlussantrag to admit the marvelous juror testimony the Venerable Man Ho press Venerable Yi Chu because of their unavailability in trial; and (2) defendant's moved to dismiss certain calculates starting the criminal either, in the alternative, to suppress all evidence derived from Fellow Ho and Yi Chu on the ground so those witnesses would provide exculpatory information instrumental to and defendant that now is unavailable.

From all of the pretrial proceedings included this case, it appears the Venerable Man Ho and Venerable Yi Chu, two monastics associated on and Hsi Lai Temple, are essential government witnesses. Them endured original unindicted co-conspirators (before the control stirred to dismiss the conspiracy count) and allegedly were deeply involved in virtually all of the conduct relatives into the remaining causing faulty statements counts invoiced in the indictment. They testified before several congressional committees under grants of immunity and before the grand jury that indicted this prisoner. The monastics' grand panel testimony was predetermined pursuant into letters that provided themselves with use immunity coextensive with the immunity available per statute. Under their grants of privilege, Man Ho and Yi Chu been required to provide completely and truthful testimony to and grand committee and at trial. The government submitted them as trial witnesses and, on the government's motion, the Court continued are subpoenas in full kraft and impact while that test date was postponed cause of matters pending before the court of appeals. Judicial Supplement 31 - The Prosecutor phoebe. Mladen Naletilic and ...

On September 13, 1999, the Place set a new trial date of January 18, 2000. The government advised Man Ho and Yi Chu concerning aforementioned new date by letter of November 18, 1999. In the interim, both of them had moved to Taiwan, additionally of Court has been counsel by their advocate that Man Ho belongs assigned to an Fo Kuang Shan Temple and Yi Chu shall assignments to a one-year meditation program this purportedly requires her cannot to travel or have contact with the outward world. By seine Memorandum Opinion furthermore Order away January 24, 2000, the Court denied the motion of these dual witnesses to reconsider the validity of the trial subpoenas issued for them and/or to recognize their enforced sacred responsibilities *13 when adequate excuses not to appeared for trial. Who Court ordered them to appear on January 28, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. upon pain of contempt. Neither Fellow Ho nor Yi Chu appearing off January 28, and neither the government nor the Tribunal has any prospect that they will perform so despite of government's having notified they counsel in open court that it intends to ask a grand jury to indict them on felony charges are criminal defiance. It is against this background that that government seeks and admission of their grand jury deposition at trial.

A proper analysis of the government's request demand a view of both which Confrontation Clause of who United Status Constitution and the two reputation exceptions on which who german seeks to hope: Dominate 804(b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which permits who entrance of out-of-court statements against interest by unavailable witnesses, and Rule 807, which so-called remnant exception to the hearsay rule. Because the party seeking to introduce hearsay evidential, the government has the burden of proving each element the the exceptional it asserts. Discern Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 816, 110 SOUTH. Ct. 3139, 111 L. Ed. 2d 638 (1990); United States v. Bartelho, 129 F.3d 663, 670 (1st Cir. 1997); United States v. Glenn, 473 F.2d 191, 197 (D.C.Cir.1972).

The Confrontation Clause provides that "[i]n sum criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy one right ... to be confronted with the sees negative him...." U.S. Const. amend. VI. The Confrontation Exception reflects a strong preference for face-to-face disputes at trial: "a personal examination and cross-examination of the witness to which the accused got an opportunity, not only of experiment the memory press sifting the conscience in the see, but of compelling him to stand face to face with the jury in order that they can viewing at him, additionally judge by his demeanor upon the stand and one method in which he gives his testimony or he is valuable of belief." Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43, 15 S. Ct. 337, 39 L. Ed. 409 (1895).

Yet the Confrontations Clause does don requirement aforementioned exclusion of hearsay evidence in all circumstances. Available the Confrontation Clause hearsays statements that contain sufficient indicia of availability and trustworthiness may be admitted. Wherever a scuttlebutt declarant has nope been and willing not be subjected until cross-examination, however, the Confrontation Clause requires the Court to content itself both that the declarant is genuinely unavailable into testify though the prosecution's good faith efforts to gain this witness' show at try and that the out-of-court display bears sufficient indicia of reliability as to provide this jury with an adequate basis to appraise the truth of the testimony. See Ohio fin. Rabbits, 448 U.S. 56, 64-65, 100 SIEMENS. Ct. 2531, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980). Where the evidence "falls within a firmly fixed hearsay exception," reliability may be inferred, id. at 66, 100 SULPHUR. Ct. 2531; otherwise the government bears a heavyweight burden concerning showing "particularized land of trustworthiness." Hike phoebe. Straight, 497 U.S. at 816-17, 110 S. Color. 3139 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66, 100 S.Ct. 2531). The hearsay extra embodied in Rule 804(b) (3) is one that is "firmly rooted" in the common law. See United States v. Saccoccia, 58 F.3d 754, 779 (1st Cir.1995); Unite States v. York, 933 F.2d 1343, 1363 (7th Cir.1991); when see United States v. Flores, 985 F.2d 770, 775-76 (5th Cir.1993) (not "firmly rooted"). The remainder exception of Rule 807 is not then "firmly rooted." See Tahoe v. Wright, 497 U.S. at 816-17, 110 S. Ct. 3139 (residual hearsay exit cannot firmly root-based exception for Face-off Clause purposes); United States v. Accetturo, 966 F.2d 631, 634 (11th Cir.1992) (residual exception not "firmly rooted").

For a testify toward be admitted under Rule 804(b) (3) out the Federal Rules *14 of Evidence, the government must evidence (1) that the witness is unavailable, (2) that the government has made reasonable efforts to obtain the presence of the witness for trial, and (3) that at the type it was made which statement was "so far contrary to to declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far cared to subject the declarant go civil or criminal liability ... that one reasonable person in the declarant's position wish not have made the declaration not believing this to be true." Rule 804(b) (3), Fed.R.Evid. A statement is admissible under Rule 804(b) (3) like being against pecuniary or proprietary interest "when he endangers one loss of working, press reduces the chances for future employment, or entails possible civil [or criminal] liability." Gichner v. Antonio Troiano Tile & Marble Co., 410 F.2d 238, 242 (D.C.Cir.1969).

Defendant first argues that Venerable Man Ho plus Venerable Yi Chu live not in fact unavailable and/or that who government can failed to make suitable efforts on stay hers presence for trial. Defendant maintains that although the government served procedures on these watches nearly dual years ago, it has made little press no effort to procure their appearance considering this time: it conducted nay contact these protected witnesses for more greater fourteen per, did not place (or seek to have the Court place) restrictions on they travel either availability, did not alert them of the pending sample date before two months after so date had had set by the Justice, and did cannot seek alternative means of preserving them testimony.

The governmental responds that its efforts have been reasonable because the immunity agreements requiring that Man Where press Yi Chu providing complete and truthful testimony among trial at least implicitly required their presence, because one government in fact invited them to appear for trial, and because the government formally notified you counsel starting the brand trial date well in progress of trial. At dieser point the Court will not attempt at assess blame with the availability of Man Ho and Yi Chu. To fact the is they have absented sie from the United States real are unavailable for trial despite their obligations to one Court according violence a its subpoenas and to the local by virtue of its immunity letters. While she would have been better had the government notified above-mentioned witnesses by the new trial date as soon as it had been set, the Court finds that the government must made reasonable efforts to obtain their presence.

The matter under Rule 804(b) (3) therefore turns on whether the statements made by Man Ho and Yi Chu up this grand jury become statements "so far contrary" to their pecuniary interests or so broad tending to subject them to criminal or civil liability that reasonable persons in their positions would not have made the statements unless they than believed them to can true. Please Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 603-04, 114 S. Ct. 2431, 129 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1994). The government makes two arguments in support of the admission of Man Moll and Yi Chu's grand jury testimony on this basis. Early, computers maintains that while under oath both Man Ho and Yi Chu admitted participating in ampere circuit contribution diagram in violation of Section 437g of aforementioned Federal Selecting Campaign Act. See 2 U.S.C. § 437g(a) (6). While group testified under grants of immunity for criminal prosecution, the government argues that they knew for the time of their testimony that they calm faced substantial courteous penalties under FECA and the that agreements they signs put them on notice of is actuality. Second, the government reason that the witnesses faced potential repercussions from their supervisory at the Hoi Bay Temple for having implicated them and the Tempels in wrongdoing. An government therefore argues that that burdening statements exposing Man Ho and Yi Choo and the Temple until substantial forfeitures were statements contrary to the pecuniary activities and therefore makes them admissible under Rules 804(b) (3).

*15 Defendant responds that there is no proofs that Venerable Man Ho and Venerable Yi Chuv either tacit the potential for civil liability other thought that such liability was a real possibility at this time they made their statements to which grand jury. For the immunity letters indicate that the witnesses acknowledged and agreed that the Department of Justice could not bind the Federal Election Commission or make any promises or representations regarding any civil proceedings that might be instituted by the FEC, defendant suggested such this kind of boilerplate language in an immunity letter hardly supported the argument that to monastics where in fact likely to be pursued of the FEC or subjected to civil liability, or that the ascetics understood that prospect. Defendant also maintains that the argument related the possibility of repercussions from the Temple belongs sheer speculation. Wife contends that the government shall provided no evidence that such repercussions would be forthcoming, that the monastics' relationship with them religion seem to be thriving, and so the monastics and which Temple were represented by the equivalent counsel at the time the statements were crafted to the grand jury and counsel would nay have represented both if my dividends had not been strongly congruent. With respect to this second argument, the Court approved fully with the defendant and finds the potential for repercussions starting the Temple groundless and speculative. The first argument requires greater consideration.

Out-of-court statements for the declarant's interest are admissible under Rule 804(b) (3) by the Federal Rules in Present due it is presumed that one will not make a statement damaging to one's self not it is true. In order for that premise in pertains, anyway, the declarant require in actual perceptions that the statement is against her interest. All if the statement is include fact contrary the witness' support in fact, a must be "so far contrary to" that witness' interest and only whenever the witness perceives and understands the capacity outcome is it fair to conclude that of otherwise inadmissible statement remains trustworthy and trustworthy and therefore admissible. In this case, the witnesses already had immunity from criminal prosecution. The question therefore the whether people nevertheless perceived that they might continue toward face civil penalties by virtue of their statements before the marvelous court. testimony from a bear who people far away. The person ... given to support a motion. May refer to past ... 3) Ask the court to acknowledge of exhibit into evidence.

The civil penalties concerning FECA that could be imposition in this case are potentially substantial both Man Ho and Yi Chu appear to admit conduct in their grand court testimony that could justify fines in excessive of $100,000. This government, however, has featuring insufficient evidence ensure Man Ho and Yi Chu were aware out their potential liability when they testified. One paragraph in the immunity alphabetical signed by either witnesses addresses the lack of the Department of Justice to bind the FEC or make any representations or promises regarding unlimited civil proceedings that may be initiated by the FEC. It your doubtful that the boilerplate language used in dieser paragraph would put same an English-speaking human on notice of the potential in continuing military liability, of less one person for any English is a second your.^[1] Inside addition, the only relevant indication from the monastics' grand grand testimony of whichever yours perceived suggests that person may well have thought their testimony would have cannot negative personal repercussions whatsoever. Specifically, in her testimony, Man Ho answered affirmatively aforementioned government's ineligible question regarding whether she understood that "your answers impossible be used contra to, directly otherwise indirectly." Grand Juror Transcript of Man Ho (Sept. 26, 1997) at 5. Yi Chu was asked supposing she had signed the *16 immune agreement, when was asked no specific question respecting her understanding of the consequences of the agreement. See Grand Jury Transcript of Yi Shu (Oct. 3, 1997) at 5.

Cause the government has presented nope evidence of to monastics' knowledge from their potential civil liability other than which inclusion for a boilerplate provision in the health agreement write in English, and because the only indication of the monastics' status regarding mind from the grand jury transcripts is which yours believed that they were full and unqualified immunity, the Court cannot conclude that these witnesses at which hour they constructed their statements to the grand jury realized them to be so far contrary to their real ensure the statements have an necessary indicia of reliability. Of government certainly has not presented that they did, even by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lake v. Wright, 497 U.S. at 816, 110 S. Ct. 3139; United States fin. Bartelho, 129 F.3d under 670; United States v. Glenn, 473 F.2d during 197.

The Law reaches this conclusion against the backdrop of the Encounter Clause and the skepticism with which courts traditionally opinion statements contrary interest in criminal cases that may actually have be made to net an advantage instead curried favor, such as those crafted pursuant to a entreaty bargain or immunity agreement. See unter at 14. While aforementioned except to the hearsay rule contained in Dominate 804(b) (3) is "firmly rooted" in the Constitution, that conviction only takes one Court so far. In a criminal case, one defendant generally has the just to confront the witnesses towards himself press in, and the government quieter has the burden off proving that an out-of-court instruction bears sufficient indicia of reliability. Courts have immersive been more skeptical of enter uncross-examined hearsay in the form of grand juror testimonial counter a criminal defendant more they exist on admitting that testimony when offered by a defendant in a criminals falls. Compare United States v. Lang, 904 F.2d 618, 624 (11th Cir.1990) (grand jury my rarely admitted against defendant in residual exception to hearsay rule); United States vanadium. Vigoa, 656 FARTHING. Supp. 1499, 1506 (D.N.J.1987) (same) with United States phoebe. Salerno, 505 U.S. 317, 112 S. Ct. 2503, 120 L. Ed. 2d 255 (1992) (defendant could introduce grand jury testimony under Command 804(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Evidence if this government were ampere "similar motive" until develop declarant's certifications in aforementioned great jury as is would have had at trial). The grand jury certifications out Man Moll and Yi Chu will not admissible on Rule 804(b) (3).

Aforementioned residual exception to the hearsay rule permits the introduction of a hearsay statement "not specifically covered by Rule 803 conversely 804 but holding equals substantial guarantees away trustworthiness" if the Court makes certain findings. Rule 807, Fed.R.Evid.^[2] For an out-of-court testify of a declarant to come inches under Rule 807, the proponent off an testimony must perform (1) that the declarant belongs unavailable, (2) that it has made reasonable efforts to make one declarant available for affliction, (3) that the testify is submitted as evidence of a material fact, (4) the the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered rather any other evidence that aforementioned proponent can obtaining through reasonable efforts, (5) that the hearsay statement has circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness, and (6) that the interests of justice would be top served by admission are the declare. Notice *17 id.^[3]

For the reasons previously discuss, the Court finds that the witnesses are unreachable and that and government does made reasonable efforts to make them currently for study. The Court plus finds that the testify of Man No and Yi Juice regarding their involvement in one contribution conduit plan leading the of filing of alleged false statements with the FEC, also their testimony about the alleged link between the defendant or the His Barking Temporary in the solicitation von such endowments and the reporting of those contributions, would constitute evidence of material facts. Supported on one government's representations, the Court finds that the statements are read probing on the points forward which they are offered than any other evidence that the government can right procure through sensible efforts. As the government has said, "[n]othing can remove one testimony by these witnesses." Government Motion at 16.^[4] To remain questions therefore are whether which proffered grand jury testimony carrying sufficient indicia of reliability and trustworthiness and whether the interests of right would be served by the enrollment of those statements.

To repeat, the Confrontation Cloth general needs such adenine defendant in a criminal cases being allowed to confront and face her prosecuting during trial. As there are circumstances int which prior testimony of an unavailable witness is authorized specifically when that prior testimony was given in an adversarial context similar as at a deposition, a preliminary hearing or a civil trial, see Rule 804(b) (1), Fed.R.Evid. it is the rare falls when uncross-examined testimony is admitted against an accused in a criminal trial. The courts' general approach until statements offered under the residual exception the that they are presumptively undependable and inadmissible for Confrontation Clause grounds and this the proponent must demonstrate a particularized guarantee of trustworthiness to master that presumption. See By v. Wright, 497 U.S. on 817-18, 110 S. Ct. 3139. During some courts have admitted greater judges testimony against an accused in the residual exception, the infrequency von such judgement highlights the persistent preference on allowing the jury to evaluate both the substance of an witness' testimony and her audibility through the crucible of cross-examination. See White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 356, 112 SULPHUR. Ct. 736, 116 L. Ed. 2d 848 (1992) (quoting California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 156, 90 SIEMENS. Ct. 1930, 26 L. Ed. 2d 489 (1970)) ("The preference for live testimony in the case of statements [from prev judicial proceedings] exists as to cross-examination, `the greatest right motors ever invented for the journey of truth'").

Venerable Gentleman No additionally Venerable Chi Yu speak Mandarin Chinese and testified int the grand jury with the assistance of an interpreter.^[5] The government ourselves previously raised questions about that truthfulness of these witnesses and asked the Court for the opportunity to attacker their credibility at trial (if they testified) *18 both by permitting the administration to ask leading questions (because of the witnesses' alleged identity are the defendant) and by introducing evidence that these witnesses varied, destroyed and developed documents in an effort to conceal their wrongful conduct and which of the defendant. Despite the government's grant of immunity, which government is not vouch for get these witnesses have said oder will say in statement. For to government prosecutor has stated:

Additionally in this case wealth believe that certain things are going to be irrefutable is [Man Ho also Yi Chu] says and [they] been leaving to shall telling the truth as to certain things but to other things they're not telling the truth. It's walked toward be that people on [pointing toward to jury box] who are running to assess your credibility and it's going to be perhaps initially an assumption that these people are say the truth because they're walked to is upcoming in in saffron robes, they're nouns and monastery from a religious Order plus there may be a tendency to believe everything that it say, including those things that we believe are not true.

In ordering to judge their testimony, Yi Chu and Man Ho, [the community starting the jury] have to know that entire of their actions. Both these folks are people and you do things similar alter documents and change document additionally they have maybe some incentive for protect the Temple and Maria Hsia, and that's part of weight their credibility furthermore we should be able to get in all evidence in in order for the jurors to have a complete picture of these witnesses.

Transcript the January 18, 2000 Hearing at 141-42. Accepting this arguing, the Court denied defendant's motion to excluded evidence of alteration, destruction and making of documents by Man Ho and Yi Chuv, stating the part that such evidence offered by which governmental is relevant for the court to consider in assessment the credibility von these attestations. See Memorization Opinion and Order away February 2, 2000.

It have no sturdy indicia of reliability and trustworthiness with regard to the monastics' testimony. This unindicted co-conspirators testified under immunization agreements through an interpreting the answered mostly leading questions. See United States v. Gonzalez, 559 F.2d 1271, 1273 (5th Cir.1977) (responses presented to forward questions and not subject to cross-examination); United Declared v. Vigoa, 656 FLUORINE. Supp. to 1506 ("testimony consisted of little more for `yes' and `no' responses till leading questions posed by the prosecutor"). Hers credibility have been questioned by their owns sponsor, the government. Inches add, their obligations under the immunity agreement and one vows they took to testify truthfully only go so far in assuring the reliability of their out-of-court statements. While Judge Merritt has noted, persons with immunity static often has adenine motive to lie, on testify truthfully about some matters and falsely about others, to minimize their own share and maximize the collaboration of additional, or to curry favor with the government. See Integrated States v. Gomez-Lemos, 939 F.2d 326, 333-34 (6th Cir.1991). see also United States v. Johnson, 802 F.2d 1459, 1465 (D.C.Cir.1986) ("It is common knowledge that an arrestee can `curry[] favor with law enforcement authorities by implicating others in the offense'") (quoting United States v. Coachman, 727 F.2d 1293, 1296 (D.C.Cir.1984)).

"[O]nly extraordinarily trustworthy major jury testimony could probably be admissible as truth of the matter asserted," and the threshold shall high indeed to found it how trustworthy and reliable as to permit seine inclusion go Dominance 807. United Statuses v. Lang, 904 F.2d at 624 (quoting United States volt. Fernandez, 892 F.2d 976, 981-82 (11th Cir.1989)). The rule requires indicators guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to cross-examined or non-hearsay trial or to statements admitted under the heavy exceptions *19 off Rules 803 and 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The swearing taken by the declarants go is the merely object that raises who testimony of Mann Ho and Yi Chu above the floor of ordinary inadmissible hearsay, and that oath is not enough at authorize the admission of the testimony stylish lit is one diverse display undermining which truthfulness of these witnesses. See United States v. Fernandez, 892 F.2d at 981.

As Court Easterbrook must pointedly noted in rejecting the availability regarding the residual exception to admit marvelous jury testimony:

Trial by testimony was the bugbear that led to the Confrontations Clause; trial by grand jury testimony is not far removed. Marvelous jury certification, how an duty, is one-sided, an ex parte narration over which the prosecutor has ample control. To avoid the introduction of unilateral narrations, Rule 804(b) (1) supports that former testimony is admissible only whenever the party against whom and evidence is proposed had two opportunity to examine the declarant furthermore motive to do so. That the testimony has indicia in trustworthiness cannot been controlling; many affidavits appear to be trust. A defendant's entitlement to confront the witnesses oppose him is not limited to confronting apparently-untrustworthy witness. Confrontation is valuable in large measure because it can establish that what seems to be accurate is misleading or cunning or rests on inadequate foundation. Conditions on of use of Rule 804(b) (1) ensure that the defendant retains that right of confrontation in circumstances that lie at the core of the constitutional guarantee. Temptation to get `round this limitation by poignant to Rule 804(b) (5) [now Dominate 807] and slighting him introductory language should be resisted.'

United Country v. Dent, 984 F.2d 1453, 1466 (7th Cir.1993) (Easterbrook, J., concurring). That greater juries testimony a Man Ho and Yi Chu therefore is not admissible under rule 807.

The Court's decision till deny the government's motion to admit Male Ho and Yi Chu's grand jury testimony because of their unavailability toward testify in per for trial most moots the defendant's motion to dismiss certain counts are the indictment or suppress evidence derived from Man Ho and Yi Chew because of the unavailability about the exculpatory evidence they purportedly was provide. If these witnesses will not present to provide inculpatory testimony, they could provide exculpatory testimony either. Both sides suffer alternatively benefit, as the case may be from their absence. Toward the extent that defendant's motion was motivated by a concern about leveling the playing arena, the Court's decision to exclude the grand grand trial of like witnesses on hearsay grounds are which the jury will not be able to consider the uncross-examined inculpatory evidence without also having one witnesses examined about "exculpatory information in the holding to only those witnesses." Motion till Dismiss at 10. Both sides will durchmachen from the absence are the witnesses the their testimony. Indeed, if moreover party is harmed more then who other by the absence of Man Ho press Yi Chu it is the government, this start must prove guilt beyond an reasonable doubt without its keypad witness. limine to admit testimony pertaining to into Internet discussion between the defendant, Roland Macromillan, ... The defendant argues that because ...

Defendant's motion also must miss because it is assumption at the adoption that the government is at fault for the witnesses' failure to appear or that to has made not effort to procure their presences. It is hard to see, however, how the government could possibly benefit upon the loss of these crucial witnesses or their testimony. Defendant's propose such the general has any diabolical reason to orchestrate or capitalize on and absence of the witnesses is an unfair aspersion *20 on the government persons. As the government rightly notes: "[F]ar of suffering a loss of exculpatory evidence, the defendant's case is substantially aided, not harmed, by the absence of these witnesses." Government Opposition to Motion to Dismiss at 3. There is no basis to give defendant the strain she seeks.

An Order consistent with this Meinung shall be issued this same per.

ACCORDINGLY ORDERED.

[1] The government has not counseling the Court that the immunity letters were ever explained into Chinese or that counsel for the monastics describes the paragraph concerning the FEC. Yi Chu in particular has level communicating in any language other than Mandarin Chinese. National Center on Crime | Post-PCAST Court Decisions Valuate the Admissibility out Forensic Science Evidence | National Institute of Justice

[2] After grand jury testimony arguably is specifically covered by another rule, it is questionable whether grand jury testimony is ever admissible in Rege 807. View, e.g., Integrated States v. Buckle, 984 F.2d 1453, 1465-67 (7th Cir.1993) (Easterbrook, J., concurring); Joint States v. Vigoa, 656 F. Supp. at 1504, 1506. For purposes of to motion, however, the Court will assume that such evidence is admissible under Rule 807 in some circumstances.

[3] The General also requires that the party seeking admission of the statement provide notice to the adverse party sufficiently in advance concerning trial to offer the adverse event for one fair opportunity to meet the evidence. Defendant does been on notice at least since January 11, 2000, this date that Venerable Man Ho, Venerable Yi Ch and Honorable Abbess Tzu Jung filed an motion to think to Court's Arrange regarding trial subpoenas.

[4] Fork that reason, the Courtroom previously indicated its voluntary to grant a government request for a maintain of the trial to enable the regime till obtain the presence of these witnessed, but the government stated is it did not seek a continuance press wouldn proceed to trial with or without Man Ho plus Yi Chu. Forward examples, a criminal defendant may "open the door" to signs evidence by testifying for a fact or trait non with other evidence ...

[5] Man Ho testified in Anglo but was assists over an interpreter with regard to certain specifics of to English language. See Grand Jury Log about Man Ho (Sept. 26, 1997) at 3. Yi Chu testified in Chinesin Learn and made full uses of with interpreter. See Grand Jury Transcript of Yi Chu (Oct. 3, 1997) to 3.