United States v. Dietrich
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
854 F.2d 1056 (1988)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
John Dietrich (defendant) was convicted of crimes relating to the sale of counterfeit $100 bills. As part of its investigation of Dietrich, the Secret Service interviewed Angel Thomas. During the interview, two Secret Service agents told Thomas that her common-law husband, Charles Peek, had been arrested for passing counterfeit $100 bills and that she too would be arrested if she did not cooperate with them. No one else was present during the interview, and the interview was not recorded. During the interview, Thomas told the two agents that during a meeting with Dietrich and his wife, Dietrich had showed Thomas and Peek counterfeit $100 bills and asked Thomas and Peek to get rid of them for him. Thomas said that she and Peek declined. Following the interview with the Secret Service agents, Thomas signed a statement. During Dietrich’s trial, Thomas contradicted the statement she gave to the Secret Service agents. Thomas claimed she had never met Dietrich before and that she made up the story to help Peek and prevent her own arrest. The government admitted her signed statement from the interview over Dietrich’s objection. Dietrich appealed, arguing that the government improperly used the statement for the truth of the matter asserted even though it was hearsay.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Flaum, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
