United States v. Quinto

A federal jury convicted Michael Quinto (defendant) of two charges of tax evasion and two charges of willfully subscribing false income-tax returns for failing to report $15,700 of income in 1974 and 1975. At Quinto’s jury trial, James Wallwork, a special agent of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), testified that Quinto had confessed during an interview. Two federal prosecutors, Wallwork, and a second IRS agent interviewed Quinto at the prosecutors’ office, and all interviewers were aware at the time that Quinto had failed to report income. Quinto was alone and unrepresented by counsel. The interviewers read Quinto’s Miranda rights several times. According to Wallwork, Quinto eventually lost his composure and blurted out, “Okay, I was trying to screw the government out of some cash if I could.” Quinto’s attorney intently cross-examined Wallwork, attempting to show that the interview had been more of an inquisition. On redirect, the prosecution (plaintiff) questioned Wallwork about a memorandum that Wallwork and the other IRS agent had prepared to describe the interview. Quinto testified in his own defense, claiming that the government had trapped him into the interview, that he had been badgered throughout the interview, and that Wallwork had twisted Quinto’s statement. The district court then admitted the memorandum as substantive evidence, finding that because Quinto had attacked Wallwork’s credibility, the memorandum’s statement was Wallwork’s prior consistent statement and thus was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B) as substantive evidence to prove that Quinto had confessed. Quinto appealed from his conviction, primarily arguing that the district court had erred by admitting the IRS memorandum as a prior consistent statement under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(1)(B).