Friday, April 21, 2017

4/21/17: Interesting public record / confrontation case & a restitution case

First, in United States v. Fryberg, --- F.3d ---, No. 16-30013 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court held that a tribal "return of service," which the prosecutions used to prove the defendant had been served with notice of a hearing on a domestic violence protection order, was admissible under the public record hearsay exception in Fed. R. Evid. 803(8)(A)(ii), and that admission of the return of service did not violate the defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause because it was not testimonial.

The issue arose in a prosecution for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) (person subject to certain types of domestic violence protection orders).  

At trial, the government admitted a return of service to show the defendant had been served with the protection order.  However, the officer who actually served the defendant and completed the return did not testify (he died before trial). 

The Court found the return was hearsay but qualified as a public record because completion of the return was an “appropriate to the function” of the tribal court system and thus the officer was under a legal duty to report when he completed it.  Moreover, the fact that service had been effected was a “matter observed.” 

The Court further determined the law-enforcement exception did not apply because the return merely recorded the completion of the largely ministerial task of serving Defendant with notice of a hearing.

Finally, the Court held the return was not testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause because its primary purpose was to inform the tribal court that Defendant had been served with notice of the hearing on the protection order, which enabled the hearing to proceed. 

Second, in United States v. Johnson, --- F.3d ---, No. 15-30350 (9th Cir. 2017), the Court clarified that, under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, district courts could properly order restitution for all victims harmed by the defendant’s scheme to defraud, including those harmed by conduct beyond the count of conviction.