Evidentiary Testimony

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Delon Echols

Case No.: 23-1667

Officials: Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Kolar, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Evidentiary Testimony

Echols was found guilty of an attempt to possess a controlled substance with intent to distribute. The case stemmed from two packages of illegal drugs sent to Renita Burns’ residence, where Echols was temporarily staying. Burns suspected Echols’s involvement with the packages and testified to support this claim during the trial. The prosecution presented testimony from a DEA agent regarding a prior statement made by Burns to establish consistency in her account. Echols objected, contending that this testimony was aimed at bolstering Burns’s credibility.

The Illinois district court admitted the testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B), which permits the introduction of prior consistent statements to counter claims of fabrication. Echols was convicted, receiving a 70-month prison sentence and three years of supervised release. In his appeal, Echols argued that the admission of the prior statement was erroneous.

The Seventh Circuit acknowledged the district court’s mistake in allowing the prior statement. Referring to Rule 801(d)(1)(B) and Tome v. United States, the court highlighted that a prior consistent statement used to rebut fabrication claims must predate the alleged motive to fabricate. In this instance, Burns’s statement came after the emergence of any motive to fabricate. However, Echols failed to raise this specific objection during the trial, waiving his right to contest it on appeal.

Despite the court recognizing the admission of the prior statement as an error, it determined that this error did not significantly impact the fairness, integrity, or public perception of the legal proceedings.

Affirmed.

Decided 06/26/24

Full Text