UNITED STATES v. RODRIGUEZ VERDUGO (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Stephanie Rodriguez-Verdugo appeals her conviction relating to possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by holding that Claudia Rodriguez’s testimony regarding a series of out-of-court statements made by Rodriguez-Verdugo’s unavailable co-defendant, Nidia Cadena-Verdugo, was not admissible as statements against interest under Rule 804(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The statements were not “supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate[d] [their] trustworthiness,” United States v. Gadson, 763 F.3d 1189, 1200 (9th Cir. 2014), but were exculpatory statements made by a family member, which “are not considered to be highly reliable,” LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1268 (9th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the timing of the statements—Cadena-Verdugo spoke to Claudia Rodriguez on the eve of trial—indicates that the statements are less trustworthy. See United States v. Oropeza, 564 F.2d 316, 325 (9th Cir. 1977). Finally, because Cadena-Verdugo was a fugitive in Mexico at the time that she made the statements to Claudia Rodriguez, the chances of Cadena-Verdugo suffering adverse consequences as a result of her admissions were slim, and therefore we discount the “extent to which the declaration is really against the declarant’s penal interest.” Id. at 325; see also United States v. Fowlie, 24 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 1994).

The district court’s exclusion of Claudia Rodriguez’s testimony regarding Cadena-Verdugo’s statements was not plain error that violated Rodriguez-Verdugo’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, because the statements did not bear “persuasive assurances of trustworthiness” and were not “critical to the defense.” Gadson, 763 F.3d at 1201 (citing Chia v. Cambra, 360 F.3d 997, 1003 (9th Cir. 2004) ). Cadena-Verdugo’s out-of-court statements lacked persuasive assurances of trustworthiness because no corroborating evidence supported them, Cadena-Verdugo was not available for cross-examination, and the statements were not made spontaneously but rather delivered on the eve of trial. Further, Claudia Rodriguez’s testimony about Cadena-Verdugo’s statements was not critical to the defense because Rodriguez-Verdugo was able to testify to her own alleged lack of knowledge at trial and did so.¹

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because Rodriguez-Verdugo withdrew her appeal of the district court’s application of a two-level sentencing enhancement, we do not consider these arguments.