U.S. v. Thomas

In prosecution on murder charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting grand jury testimony of brother of one defendant, as well as similar testimony from brother at first trial, where: (1) brother denied at second trial that either defendant had confessed to said murder; and (2) brother stated to grand jury and at first trial that one defendant had admitted role in said murder. Rule 801(d)(1) allows for admission of transcripts containing witness’s prior inconsistent testimony given under oath. Moreover, prosecutor could properly use brother’s inconsistent statements given to police officials shortly after instant murder to impeach brother at second trial, even though brother claimed that said statements were coerced by threats of future imprisonment, where brother had signed waiver of rights form prior to giving statement and one interrogator testified that brother had not been threatened prior to giving statement. Also, brother could not credibly explain that fear or future perjury charges motivated him to give similar grand jury statement at first trial since said fear does not amount to sufficient “coercion.”