Everett C. McKethan v. United States

1978-10-30

Headline: Court refuses to review convictions where a recanting accomplice’s grand jury testimony was admitted, leaving convictions intact and the circuit split over hearsay rules unresolved.

Holding: The Court denied review of the convictions, leaving the Fourth Circuit’s admission of a recanted grand-jury transcript under Rule 804(b)(5) intact and not resolving the circuit split on admissibility.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the defendants’ convictions intact while higher review is denied.
Keeps unresolved circuit split about admitting grand-jury testimony when witnesses recant.
Allows lower courts to continue varying practices on hearsay and grand-jury testimony.

Topics: grand jury testimony, evidence rules, witness testimony rights, criminal convictions

Summary

Background

Two men convicted of heroin importation and related conspiracies faced trial after an alleged accomplice, a man called Robinson, testified to a grand jury. Robinson had pleaded guilty to lesser charges in return for that grand-jury testimony but later refused to testify at the defendants’ trial. The trial judge admitted the transcript of Robinson’s grand-jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(5). After the transcript was read, Robinson took the stand and recanted, saying his earlier grand-jury statements were false. The grand-jury testimony was central to the jury’s guilty verdicts, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed those convictions.

Reasoning

The main question presented was whether a witness’s prior grand-jury testimony can be admitted when the witness is unavailable or recants, and whether that admission violates evidence rules or the right to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court denied the petitions for review, so it did not resolve the question. In a dissent, Justice Stewart (joined by Justice Marshall) explained concerns that grand-jury proceedings lack usual evidence protections, that recantation undermines the oath’s trustworthiness, and that the federal circuits are split on using Rule 804(b)(5) to admit such testimony. Stewart said he would grant review to decide limits on admitting these kinds of statements.

Real world impact

Because the Court declined review, the Fourth Circuit’s decision stands and the question remains unresolved nationally. Lower courts may continue to take different approaches to admitting grand-jury transcripts when witnesses recant, producing inconsistent outcomes in criminal trials. The dissent signals the issue could return for final resolution if another case reaches the Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stewart’s dissent argues strongly for review, stressing doubts about reliability, noting circuit conflicts, and suggesting any Supreme Court review focus on the evidentiary question.