U.S. v. Hawkins

In prosecution on bank robbery charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to admit out-of-court statement by co-defendant, who indicated that third-party, as opposed to defendant, was culprit who assisted co-defendant in robbing bank. Dist. Ct. could properly find that subject statement did not qualify for admission as statement against penal interest under Rule 804(b)(3), since it lacked sufficient indicia of trustworthiness, where: (1) co-defendant originally named defendant as individual who helped him rob bank; (2) other witnesses identified only defendant and co-defendant as culprits; and (3) other circumstances, such as defendant’s possession (at time of arrest) of almost exact amount of money taken from bank teller rendered proposed statement unreliable, especially where, at guilty plea hearing, co-defendant refused to name anyone as individual who helped him rob bank. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that Dist. Ct. improperly looked to anticipated trial evidence to determine whether co-defendant’s statement was sufficiently trustworthy.