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.

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

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.