U.S. v. Valencia, 898

• Decision Date: 05 August 1987
• Docket Number: D,No. 898,898
• Citation: 826 F.2d 169
• Parties: , 23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1005 UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Freddy VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 86-1496.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 169

826 F.2d 169

56 USLW 2146, 23 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1005

UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Freddy VALENCIA, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 898, Docket 86-1496.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued March 9, 1987.

Decided Aug. 5, 1987.

Cheryl L. Pollak, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew J. Maloney, U.S. Atty., and Emily Berger, Asst. U.S. Atty., Brooklyn, N.Y., on the brief), for appellant.

Michael M. Maloney, New York City, for defendant-appellee.

Before MESKILL and NEWMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLUMENFELD, District Judge. ^*

JON O. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents the issue, rarely litigated, whether statements made by defense counsel during informal conversations with a prosecutor may be admitted against a criminal defendant as admissions by an agent. The issue arises on an appeal by the United States from a pretrial order of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Henry Bramwell, Judge) excluding from evidence out-of-court statements made by a defendant's counsel in his efforts to secure bail for his client. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that Judge Bramwell did not exceed his discretion in excluding the attorney's statements, and we therefore affirm the ruling of the District Court.

Background

Freddy Valencia is charged with conspiracy to possess and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. For purposes of this appeal, we accept the statement of facts alleged by the Government. The theory of the prosecution is that Valencia conspired with co-defendant Gladys Bolivar to sell a kilogram of cocaine to a Government informant. On August 19 and 20, 1986, Bolivar negotiated the sale with the informant during a series of phone calls. She later met him by arrangement in a supermarket in Queens and returned there to meet him a second time to deliver the narcotics. Valencia was seen joining Bolivar during the first meeting. He and Bolivar then left the supermarket together in a car driven by Valencia, and he returned with her in the same car for the second meeting. When the informant gave the prearranged signal during the second meeting, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents arrested both Bolivar and Valencia.

Valencia retained attorney Michael Maloney to represent him. In late August and early September 1986, Maloney initiated several conversations with the case agent and the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) in an effort to persuade the Government to release Valencia on bail. One reason for setting bail, he argued, was that his client was innocent. Maloney represented that Valencia had not met Bolivar prior to August 20 and that his encounter with her that day was entirely innocent. In a telephone conversation with the AUSA, Maloney elaborated his contentions. According to Maloney, Valencia first saw Bolivar in the Queens supermarket and decided to try to "pick her up." He approached her and introduced himself. When, two hours later, he happened to see her again standing near a bus stop, he offered her a ride, which she accepted. The Government contends that in recounting this story, Maloney told the AUSA that he was repeating what his client had told him.

The Government later obtained evidence that contradicted Maloney's account of the facts and proved that Bolivar and Valencia had had a longstanding relationship since at least 1985. The Government sought a pretrial ruling that Maloney's remarks were admissible at trial as false exculpatory statements attributable to Valencia. It contended that because Maloney made those statements while acting on Valencia's behalf and within the scope of his employment, they were admissible as admissions of a party-opponent under the agency exceptions to the hearsay rule. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(C), (D). The Government sought the right to use Maloney's statements both as substantive evidence to show Valencia's consciousness of guilt and as impeaching evidence if Valencia testified.

Ruling from the bench, Judge Bramwell denied the Government's motion. He ruled that Maloney's statements "may not be directly attributed to the defendant" and that their use would be "contrary to the attorney/client privilege." "To rule as the government asks," he cautioned, "would set a dangerous precedent for the admission of all informal, out-of-court statements by attorneys against their clients." The Government appeals from Judge Bramwell's order under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731 (1982).

Discussion

I.

Preliminarily, we examine the procedure that gives rise to this interlocutory appeal. The ruling sought to be reviewed resulted from the Government's pretrial motion to have Maloney's statements admitted at trial. There is no provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that explicitly authorizes such a motion. "[T]he practice [of in limine rulings] has developed pursuant to the district court's inherent authority to manage the course of trials." Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 n. 4, 105 S.Ct. 460, 463 n. 4, 83 L.Ed.2d 443 (1984). Rule 12(e) of the Criminal Rules authorizes a district judge to rule on a pretrial motion before trial, but Rule 12(b) limits pretrial motions to "[a]ny defense, objection, or request which is capable of determination without the trial of the general issue." The Government's motion for a ruling in favor of the admissibility of evidence is not a "defense" or an "objection," and, though it is generically a "request" for a ruling, that term, as used in Rule 12 when applied to the Government, would seem to mean requests for reciprocal discovery under Rule 16(b). See Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(4). The procedure contemplated by Rule 12 to precipitate the ruling the Government sought in this case is notice by the Government of its intention to use particular evidence, Rule 12(d)(1), followed by the defendant's motion to suppress that evidence, Rule 12(b)(3).

Despite the lack of explicit authorization, the practice of pretrial rulings on Government motions to use evidence at trial has been tacitly approved by the Supreme Court, United States v. Helstoski, 442 U.S. 477, 484, 487 n. 6, 99 S.Ct. 2432, 2437, 2439 n. 6, 61 L.Ed.2d 12 (1979), and by this Court, United States v. Desist, 384 F.2d 889, 897 (2d Cir.1967), aff'd, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1030, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969). See also United States v. Layton, 720 F.2d 548, 553 (9th Cir.1983) (Government motion to admit at second trial evidence excluded at first trial), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1069, 104 S.Ct. 1423, 79 L.Ed.2d 748 (1984); United States v. Margiotta, 662 F.2d 131, 136, 141 (2d Cir.1981) (same), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 913, 103 S.Ct. 1891, 77 L.Ed.2d 282 (1983). In Layton the Ninth Circuit pointed out that the district judge has discretion in deciding whether to rule on a pretrial motion before trial. At first glance, that view seems at odds with the command of Rule 12(e) that "no such determination [of a pretrial motion] shall be deferred [until trial or verdict] if a party's right to appeal is adversely affected." We agree with the Ninth Circuit, however, because the motions covered by Rule 12(e) are only those included within Rule 12(b), which is limited to motions raising matters "capable of determination without the trial of the general issue." Many rulings on evidence cannot be made until the course of the trial reveals whether the disputed evidence is relevant, cumulative, or prejudicial. The district judge must have discretion in deciding whether a pretrial ruling on evidence may be made in advance of trial.

In this case, Judge Bramwell evidently was satisfied that the Government's motion was appropriate for ruling in advance of the trial, and that decision was within his discretion. Once he ruled that evidence inadmissible, the Government was entitled to secure pretrial review pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3731. United States v. Layton, supra; United States v. Margiotta, supra.

II.

The Government contends that Maloney's statements to the prosecutor are admissible against Valencia under Rule 801(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence as admissions of a party-opponent. The Government relies alternatively on subsection 801(d)(2)(C), "a statement by a person authorized by [a party] to make a statement concerning the subject," or subsection 801(d)(2)(D), "a statement by [the party's] agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of his agency or employment, made during the existence of the relationship." In this case, the Government gains nothing from subsection (C). The only basis relied on for a conclusion that Valencia authorized Maloney to make the offered statements is the fact that Maloney was Valencia's agent, that the subject matter was within the scope of the agency, and that the statements were made during the agency relationship. Thus, the Government's appeal stands or falls on whether Judge Bramwell erred in declining to consider the statements admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(D).

This Court has recognized that "[s]tatements made by an attorney concerning a matter within his employment may be admissible against the party retaining the attorney." United States v. Margiotta, supra, 662 F.2d at 142 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). However, in United States v. McKeon, 738 F.2d 26 (2d Cir.1984), we emphasized that care must be exercised in the criminal context in determining under what circumstances attorney statements may be used against a client, and we declined "to subject such statements to the more expansive practices sometimes permitted under the rule allowing use of admissions by a party-opponent." Id. at 31. Our concern arose because the routine use of attorney statements against a criminal defendant risks impairment of the privilege against self-incrimination, the right to counsel of one's choice, ¹ and the right to the effective assistance of counsel. In McKeon we considered whether an attorney's description of facts during his opening statement in a criminal trial was admissible...