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

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

D is a prisoner at a federal correctional institution. On August 19, 2017, D and a fellow inmate, Erik Rojo, passed through metal detectors while returning to their housing units after lunch. One of them wore a white shirt, and the other wore a brown shirt. The white-shirted individual traversed the metal detectors without incident, but the brown-shirted individual triggered an alarm. Two correctional officers, Brian Moreno and Anthony Guerrero, initiated a pat-down search. The brown-shirted individual and Moreno entered a verbal back-and-forth, and that the former threw the first punch. P claims that the blow was unprovoked; D asserts that the brown-shirted individual threw the punch in self-defense after Moreno first quickly raised his arm. Guerrero rushed to assist his fellow officer. The white-shirted individual-who by now was already some distance beyond the metal detectors-turned back to join the fray, punching Moreno in the back of the head and knocking him unconscious, before attacking Guerrero. Other officers arrived and stabilized the situation, but not before Moreno and Guerrero both suffered physical injuries. A grand jury indicted both Rojo and D on two counts of assaulting a federal officer resulting in bodily injury and the aiding and abetting thereof, with one count for the assault on Moreno and the second for the assault on Guerrero. On August 15, 2019, Rojo and the government entered into a plea agreement in which Rojo pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting a federal officer resulting in bodily injury. The plea agreement identified Rojo as the individual in the white shirt who passed through the metal detectors without incident, and D who set off the alarm and threw the first punch. The agreement was signed. P filed a notice of errata withdrawing its sentencing position. On December 4, 2019, P filed an amended plea agreement, which removed all references to D. At D's trial, the government consistently portrayed him as the person in the white shirt, while D consistently maintained that he was clad in brown. D claimed he acted to protect himself from perceived aggression by Moreno during the search. This self-defense theory was, practically speaking, unavailable to the white-shirted individual, who ran back from across the courtyard to join the fight after it started. D sought to introduce, as the statement of a party opponent, Rojo's original factual basis as evidence that the government had previously taken the position that D wore the brown shirt. P filed a motion in limine to exclude the original factual basis under Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 802. P argued, in part, that the original factual basis was irrelevant because, '[a]s a general matter, the fact of a plea or conviction of a non-testifying co-defendant is inadmissible'; the original factual basis was merely the mistaken 'personal opinion' of the prosecutor at the time; and the original factual basis was inoperative and no longer had any 'legal significance.' P also maintained that the original factual basis constituted hearsay because it was 'an out-of-court admission by Rojo,' who was not testifying at D's trial. The court held that Rule 801(d)(1)(A)'s hearsay exclusion for prior inconsistent statements did not apply to the original factual basis because Rojo was not called to testify at D's trial. It reasoned that Rule 801(d)(2)'s hearsay exclusion for an admission of a party opponent did not apply to the 'opinion' of a prosecutor. Moreno and Guerrero each testified that Rojo wore the brown shirt. But other officers-including the one who handcuffed the brown-shirted individual, and another who escorted the brown-shirted individual to a restricted housing unit after the fight-testified that D wore the brown shirt. The district court instructed the jury on self-defense. D was convicted on both counts of assault resulting in bodily injury against Moreno and Guerrero. D was sentenced to 57 months imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $8,983.39 for Moreno and Guerrero's lost wages. D appealed.

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

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