United States v. Morlang
Encyclopedia
United States v. Morlang, 531 F.2d 183 (4th Cir. 1975), was a case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
that held that calling a witness knowing that unfavorable testimony will be given is improper when it allows the proponent to bring in substantive evidence under the guise of witness impeachment
.
to bribe the director of the Federal Housing Administration
. The prosecutor called Morlang's co-conspirator Wilmoth to the stand to testify that Morlang had admitted the scheme to him. Before trial, Wilmoth told the prosecutor that he would deny that Morlang made such an admission. During the trial, Wilmoth did deny hearing an admission from Morlang. The prosecutor called Crist, Wilmoth's cellmate, to testify that Wilmoth told him about an admission about the scheme from Morlang. Morland was convicted and appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
to the jury. Because the prosecutor knew that Wilmoth planned to only give adverse testimony, the court reasoned that the prosecution's only reason to call him was to impeach him with the statement about Morlang's admission. The court noted that it is often difficult for juries to distinguish between using a statement only to undermine the credibility of a witness and using the statement to prove what it says. The court held that impeaching Wilmoth was simply a tactic to get Morlang's admission in front of the jury, and it would be difficult for the jury to ignore its substantive value.
Rule 607, which allows the party calling a witness to impeach that witness's credibility. The Morlang standard was followed by the D.C. Circuit in the case United States v. Johnson and by the Ninth Circuit in the case United States v. Gomez-Gallardo.
Morlang has been limited in some circuits to apply only in cases of bad faith. In cases where the proponent has a good faith
belief that the witness will at least give some favorable testimony, abuse of FRE 607 has not been found.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a federal court located in Richmond, Virginia, with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:*District of Maryland*Eastern District of North Carolina...
that held that calling a witness knowing that unfavorable testimony will be given is improper when it allows the proponent to bring in substantive evidence under the guise of witness impeachment
Witness impeachment
Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial...
.
Factual background
The defendant Morlang was on trial for a conspiracyConspiracy (crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement...
to bribe the director of the Federal Housing Administration
Federal Housing Administration
The Federal Housing Administration is a United States government agency created as part of the National Housing Act of 1934. It insured loans made by banks and other private lenders for home building and home buying...
. The prosecutor called Morlang's co-conspirator Wilmoth to the stand to testify that Morlang had admitted the scheme to him. Before trial, Wilmoth told the prosecutor that he would deny that Morlang made such an admission. During the trial, Wilmoth did deny hearing an admission from Morlang. The prosecutor called Crist, Wilmoth's cellmate, to testify that Wilmoth told him about an admission about the scheme from Morlang. Morland was convicted and appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Majority opinion
The Fourth Circuit reversed Morlang's conviction in an opinion by Judge Widener. Even though calling Crist was an ostensibly permissible way to impeach the credibility of Wilmoth, the court understood the tactic as a way to present otherwise inadmissible hearsayHearsay
Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of...
to the jury. Because the prosecutor knew that Wilmoth planned to only give adverse testimony, the court reasoned that the prosecution's only reason to call him was to impeach him with the statement about Morlang's admission. The court noted that it is often difficult for juries to distinguish between using a statement only to undermine the credibility of a witness and using the statement to prove what it says. The court held that impeaching Wilmoth was simply a tactic to get Morlang's admission in front of the jury, and it would be difficult for the jury to ignore its substantive value.
Butzner's dissent
In his dissent, Judge Butzner noted that the prosecutor had other reasons for calling Wilmoth to the stand, like to corroborate other aspects of the crime. Butzner noted that proponents are no longer thought to vouch for the complete credibility of their witnesses. Because the prosecutor had some good faith reasons to call Wilmoth to the stand, Butzner would affirm the conviction.Impact
The decision in Morlang has been adopted as a standard for identifying abuse of Federal Rules of EvidenceFederal Rules of Evidence
The is a code of evidence law governing the admission of facts by which parties in the United States federal court system may prove their cases, both civil and criminal. The Rules were enacted in 1975, with subsequent amendments....
Rule 607, which allows the party calling a witness to impeach that witness's credibility. The Morlang standard was followed by the D.C. Circuit in the case United States v. Johnson and by the Ninth Circuit in the case United States v. Gomez-Gallardo.
Morlang has been limited in some circuits to apply only in cases of bad faith. In cases where the proponent has a good faith
Good faith
In philosophy, the concept of Good faith—Latin bona fides “good faith”, bona fide “in good faith”—denotes sincere, honest intention or belief, regardless of the outcome of an action; the opposed concepts are bad faith, mala fides and perfidy...
belief that the witness will at least give some favorable testimony, abuse of FRE 607 has not been found.