TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Edward John Pistante

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward John PISTANTE, Defendant-Appellant

United States v. Pistante, 453 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 27, 1971
Docket
No. 71-2502
Judges
Merrill, Browning, Choy
Citations
453 F.2d 4121971 U.S. App. LEXIS 6439

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1973: 11975: 11976: 11978: 21980: 21982: 21995: 12024: 119732026peak 1978 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ronald E. Bemis Brenda E. Bemis v. Tim Edwards Leo Lotito Perry Aldrich City of Bend45 F.3d 1369 (9th Cir. 1995)
  2. United States v. Berentje C. M. Pohlman522 F.2d 974 (8th Cir. 1975)
  3. United States v. A. Henry Tager481 F.2d 97 (10th Cir. 1973)
  4. Fox v. United States421 A.2d 9 (D.C. 1980)
  5. State v. Goltz642 P.2d 1079 (Mont. 1982)
  6. United States v. William Connell Holbert578 F.2d 128 (5th Cir. 1978)

Most recent

  1. Douglas Bradford v. Daniel Paramo100 F.4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2024)
  2. Ronald E. Bemis Brenda E. Bemis v. Tim Edwards Leo Lotito Perry Aldrich City of Bend45 F.3d 1369 (9th Cir. 1995)
  3. State v. Goltz642 P.2d 1079 (Mont. 1982)
  4. State v. Frazier407 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1982)
  5. Brown v. State391 So. 2d 729 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1980)
  6. Fox v. United States421 A.2d 9 (D.C. 1980)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Williamson v. United States, 310 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1962) 92
Devore v. United States, 368 F.2d 396 (9th Cir. 1966) 37
J. Leslie Asher, Jr., & William R. Elmenhorst v. United States, 394 F.2d 424 (9th Cir. 1968) 12

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list