United States v. Edward John Pistante

Ninth Circuit

United States v. Edward John Pistante

453 F.2d 412, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6439

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 27, 1971

Docket71-2502

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 453 F.2d 412 (United States v. Edward John Pistante) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Edward John Pistante, 453 F.2d 412, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6439 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Edward J. Pistante appeals his conviction by a jury of theft from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. He contends that the District Court erred in refusing to exclude evidence in the Government’s case-in-chief of prior inconsistent exculpatory statements made by him before trial. At one point he maintained that he had discovered the stolen stereo by accident; at another, Pistante claimed to be an informer working to prevent theft. Pis-tante concedes that these statements were properly admissible to impeach him if he had taken the stand in his own behalf, but he argues that they were inadmissible for any other purpose.

The cases on which Pistante relies hold that prior inconsistent statements by a non-party witness are admissible only to impeach the witness’ credibility. Pistante was not a witness; he was a party-defendant. As such, any hearsay statements made by him could *413 be used against him as an admission by a party, and proven either by cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence. Asher v. United States, 394 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1968). False exculpatory statements by a party may be used not only to impeach, but also to prove consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent. Williamson v. United States, 310 F.2d 192, 199 (9th Cir. 1962). See DeVore v. United States, 368 F.2d 396, 397 (9th Cir. 1966); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 278(2) (3rd ed. 1940).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Edward J. Pistante appeals his conviction by a jury of theft from an interstate shipment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 659. He contends that the District Court erred in refusing to exclude evidence in the Government’s case-in-chief of prior inconsistent exculpatory statements made by him before trial. At one point he maintained that he had discovered the stolen stereo by accident; at another, Pistante claimed to be an informer working to prevent theft. Pis-tante concedes that these statements were properly admissible to impeach him if he had taken the stand in his own behalf, but he argues that they were inadmissible for any other purpose.

The cases on which Pistante relies hold that prior inconsistent statements by a non-party witness are admissible only to impeach the witness’ credibility. Pistante was not a witness; he was a party-defendant. As such, any hearsay statements made by him could *413 be used against him as an admission by a party, and proven either by cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence. Asher v. United States, 394 F.2d 424, 429 (9th Cir. 1968). False exculpatory statements by a party may be used not only to impeach, but also to prove consciousness of guilt and unlawful intent. Williamson v. United States, 310 F.2d 192, 199 (9th Cir. 1962). See DeVore v. United States, 368 F.2d 396, 397 (9th Cir. 1966); 2 Wigmore on Evidence § 278(2) (3rd ed. 1940).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 F.2d 412, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-edward-john-pistante-ca9-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack