United States v. MacCloskey

682 F.2d 468 (1982)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. MacCloskey

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
682 F.2d 468 (1982)

RW

Facts

The United States government (plaintiff) prosecuted Jack MacCloskey and Patsey Edwards (defendants) for conspiring to murder two government witnesses. Before trial, the prosecutor indicated that Edwards’ indictment would be dropped. The prosecutor told Edwards’ attorney to remind Edwards that if she testified at MacCloskey’s trial and incriminated herself during the testimony, she could be reindicted. The trial judge held a voir dire hearing to explore Edwards’ potential testimony. Edwards' voir dire testimony directly contradicted the government's main evidence and exculpated both Edwards and MacCloskey. After Edwards’ indictment was dropped and MacCloskey’s trial began, Edwards made it known that, if called to testify at trial, she would invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. MacCloskey requested that if Edwards refused to testify, Edwards' prior voir dire testimony be admitted into evidence under the Federal Rule of Evidence 804 hearsay rule exception for unavailable witnesses. The judge stated: (1) if Edwards invoked the Fifth Amendment, he "would not pursue the matter" because he had no right to determine if the invocation was proper; and (2) invocation of the Fifth Amendment would not make Edwards an unavailable witness for purposes of Rule 804. Edwards testified at trial, but invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege to refuse answering questions on matters covered in her voir dire testimony. Edwards explained she was concerned her testimony could lead to her reindictment. The judge denied MacCloskey's motion to admit Edwards' voir dire testimony under Rule 804. The jury convicted MacCloskey. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, MacCloskey argued the judge erred in denying his motion.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Murnaghan, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 745,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 745,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership