Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Lira
Citation: 5 F. App'x 646Docket: No. 00-50299; D.C. No. CR-99-00233-DDP-01
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; February 26, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
Enrique Lira appeals his conviction and seventy-month sentence for violating federal narcotics and money laundering laws. The court affirms Lira's conviction. The legal question focuses on whether the district court properly applied the hearsay rule, reviewed de novo. The admission of evidence under hearsay exceptions is examined for abuse of discretion. Lira argues that Agent O'Donnell's testimony regarding Lira’s alleged admission about the intended use of freon constituted impermissible hearsay, claiming O'Donnell's lack of Spanish proficiency meant he was relaying what Agent Solorio had translated for him. This argument is rejected, as not all of Lira’s statements were made in Spanish; specifically, he responded “Yes” in English when asked if he knew the freon was for methamphetamine production. Therefore, O'Donnell's testimony about this admission did not rely on hearsay. The court clarifies that post-arrest statements are admissible as substantive evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) and that the translation of questions by Agent Solorio does not invalidate O'Donnell's direct testimony about Lira's English response. Lira’s challenge to the credibility of O’Donnell's testimony is a factual matter resolved by the jury. The district court’s decision to allow Solorio's translation testimony was deemed appropriate, with Solorio acting merely as a conduit. Any potential error in admitting the translation was harmless, as Lira's own testimony aligned with Solorio's interpretation. The ruling is affirmed, and the disposition is not suitable for publication or citation except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.