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

The original indictment charged that Ds, along with eleven other defendants, were members of a large conspiracy to import heroin from Thailand into the United States. Lebel (D) contends that the district court erred in disallowing evidence that witness Laws failed to identify him at the first trial. Laws testified on direct examination at that trial that he met eight of the conspirators in Bangkok, and then identified them in the courtroom. Laws did not identify Lebel (D). The next day Laws identified Lebel (D). At the second trial, Lebel's (D) counsel attempted to bring into evidence the non-identification by examining Special Agent Yaniello, the D.E.A. case agent who had been at the first trial. The trial judge refused until Laws was given a chance to explain or deny the statement on the witness stand. The judge relied on Rule 613(b) which provides: Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness is not admissible unless the witness is afforded an opportunity to explain or deny the same and the opposite party is afforded an opportunity to interrogate him thereon, or the interests of justice otherwise require. This provision does not apply to admissions of a party-opponent as defined in rule 801(d)(2). Lebel (D) was convicted and appealed.

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.