This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Bailey (D) and Stewart robbed a bank. Stewart made a plea bargain with the government (P). He wrote a confession implicating D. However, at D's trial, Stewart refused to testify against D. He didn't want D to be convicted. P introduced Stewart's written confession under Federal Rule of Evidence 804 (b)(5)'s residual exception. Since Stewart did not testify personally, D could only cross-examine this statement by impeaching its credibility based on Stewart's past criminal record. D was convicted and moved for a new trial and/or acquittal.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.