United States v. Tetioukhine, 1st Cir. (2013)

7/26/2019 United States v. Tetioukhine, 1st Cir. (2013)

1/21

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 12- 1049

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Appel l ee,

v.

EVGUENI TETI OUKHI NE,

Def endant , Appel l ant .

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURTFOR THE DI STRI CT OF RHODE I SLAND

[ Hon. Mar y M. Li si , U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef or e

Lynch, Chi ef J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udge.

J . Mar t i n Ri chey f or appel l ant .Donal d C. Lockhar t , Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, wi t h

whom Pet er F. Ner onha, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, was on br i ef , f orappel l ee.

J ul y 26, 2013

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/21

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Thi s appeal l i nks t he st or i es of

def endant Evgueni Tet i oukhi ne, a nat i ve of Russi a, and Fi onghal

Sol omon MacEoghan, t he man whose name, i dent i f yi ng i nf ormat i on, and

l i f e hi st or y Tet i oukhi ne assumed f or over t went y year s. Once

Tet i oukhi ne' s appr opr i at i on of MacEoghan' s i dent i t y was event ual l y

di scover ed by l aw enf or cement of f i ci al s, he was char ged i n a ni ne-

count i ndi ct ment wi t h, i nt er al i a, wi r e f r aud, pr ovi di ng f al se

i nf or mat i on t o obt ai n f eder al f i nanci al ai d, maki ng f al se

st at ement s i n an appl i cat i on f or a U. S. passpor t , and aggr avat ed

i dent i t y thef t .

At t r i al , Tet i oukhi ne cl ai med t hat he l acked t he

r equi si t e i nt ent t o be gui l t y of mi sappr opr i at i ng MacEoghan' s

i dent i t y. Al t hough t he def ense i t sel f was not uni que, hi s st or y

was. Tet i oukhi ne t est i f i ed t o hi s bel i ef t hat he had been l awf ul l y

adopt ed by MacEoghan' s bi ol ogi cal f ather , Laur ence Al ber t McCoon.

As a r esul t , Tet i oukhi ne sai d, he genui nel y t hought he had t aken on

MacEoghan' s i dent i t y t hr ough l egi t i mate means and had t he r i ght t o

use MacEoghan' s i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on as hi s own.

The j ury r ej ect ed t hi s def ense and f ound Tet i oukhi ne

gui l t y. On appeal , he chal l enges t wo of t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

evi dent i ar y rul i ngs: f i r st , t he excl usi on of a pr oposed exper t

wi t ness i n Sovi et adopt i on pr act i ces and cul t ur al di f f er ences

between t he f ormer Sovi et Uni on and t he Uni t ed St at es, and second,

-2-


3/21

t he admi ssi on of evi dence per t ai ni ng t o hi s 1996 l ar ceny

convi ct i on. Di scer ni ng no er r or , we af f i r m.

I.

A. Fionghal Solomon MacEoghan and Evgueni Tetioukhine

We br i ef l y summar i ze t he f ol l owi ng f act s, dr awn f r omt he

t r i al t est i mony and document ary evi dence. I n 1969, Fi onghal

MacEoghan was born i n Dubl i n, I r el and, t o Laur ence Al ber t McCoon, 1

a U. S. ci t i zen, and Rosamond Decour sey I r el and. Al t hough MacEoghan

l i ved i n I r el and f or most of hi s l i f e, he cl ai med U. S. ci t i zenshi p

t hr ough hi s f at her .

McCoon l i ved wi t h hi s wi f e and son f or a t i me, but t hen

l ef t t he f ami l y when MacEoghan was about t hr ee or f our years ol d.

McCoon l ater r et ur ned t o I r el and and r euni t ed wi t h t he f ami l y when

MacEoghan was about t en or el even, and al l t hr ee of t hem moved t o

t he Uni t ed St at es t oget her . MacEoghan and hi s par ent s l i ved i n

Engl ewood, Cal i f or ni a, and al so spent t i me i n Mi nnesot a. At some

poi nt dur i ng MacEoghan' s chi l dhood, McCoon appl i ed f or and obt ai ned

a U. S. Soci al Secur i t y car d on hi s behal f .

McCoon and Decoursey I r el and event ual l y separ at ed, and

mother and son r etur ned t o I r el and. McCoon had onl y l i mi t ed

cont act wi t h t hem f or t he r emai nder of MacEoghan' s chi l dhood. The

l ast t i me MacEoghan had seen hi s f at her was ci r ca 1983. MacEoghan

1 McCoon changed t he spel l i ng of hi s l ast name t o "MacEoghan"at some poi nt , and al so went by t he name "Al bert Fi nl ey MacEoghan. "We r ef er t o hi m as McCoon f or si mpl i ci t y' s sake.

-3-


4/21

had never met Tet i oukhi ne, or vi si t ed Rhode I sl and unt i l he ar r i ved

t here t o t est i f y at t he t r i al .

One ni ght , t o amuse hi msel f dur i ng a bor i ng eveni ng,

MacEoghan ent ered hi s l ast name i nt o Facebook' s search engi ne,

whi ch r etur ned t he pr of i l e of a person named Ol esya MacEoghan.

Thi s name caught MacEoghan' s at t ent i on because t he spel l i ng of hi s

sur name was unusual , and he wondered i f Ol esya was a hal f si st er or

di st ant r el at i ve. MacEoghan cont act ed her vi a Facebook, and

di scover ed t hat she l i ved i n Rhode I sl and and was marr i ed t o a man

who al so cal l ed hi msel f Fi onghal Sol omon MacEoghan. Thi s

r evel at i on i ni t i at ed a chai n of event s t hat event ual l y uncover ed

t he f ol l owi ng f acts.

I n 1971, Tet i oukhi ne was born i n t he f ormer Sovi et Uni on,

i n an ar ea t hat i s now par t of Russi a. Tet i oukhi ne ar r i ved i n t he

Uni t ed St ates i n J une 1991 on a temporary vi sa, whi ch per mi t t ed hi m

t o st ay i n t he count r y unt i l Oct ober of t hat same year .

Tet i oukhi ne, however , di d not l eave t he count r y on hi s appoi nt ed

dat e. I nst ead, on Oct ober 31, 1991, t he day af t er hi s deadl i ne f or

depar t i ng the Uni t ed St at es, he obt ai ned a Rhode I sl and

i dent i f i cat i on car d i n t he name of Fi onghal S. MacEoghan, af t er

pr esent i ng a bi r t h cer t i f i cat e and Soci al Secur i t y car d wi t h

MacEoghan' s i dent i f yi ng det ai l s. Tet i oukhi ne t hen used t he name t o

pr ocur e a r epl acement Soci al Secur i t y car d, st at i ng on t he

appl i cat i on t hat he was bor n i n I r el and, t hat he was a U. S. ci t i zen

-4-


5/21

by bi r t h, and t hat McCoon was hi s f at her . On an appl i cat i on f or a

U. S. passpor t f i l ed i n 1993, Tet i oukhi ne once agai n used

MacEoghan' s i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on, and f ur t her st at ed t hat as a

chi l d, he had once possessed a U. S. passpor t t hat he had si nce

"mi spl aced. " Tet i oukhi ne al so used t he i dent i t y t o obt ai n a

$260, 000 mort gage l oan and a Rhode I sl and dr i ver ' s l i cense.

I n J anuar y 2009, Tet i oukhi ne appl i ed f or a f eder al

st udent l oan of about $15, 000, i n or der t o at t end a Rhode I sl and

uni ver si t y. The school asked Tet i oukhi ne t o expl ai n why he had not

r egi st er ed wi t h t he Sel ect i ve Ser vi ce, whi ch f or cer t ai n

i ndi vi dual s was a pr er equi si t e t o r ecei vi ng f eder al f i nanci al ai d.

Tet i oukhi ne r esponded t hat whi l e he was a U. S. ci t i zen by bi r t h, he

had been bor n i n I r el and and l i ved i n I r el and and t he Uni t ed

Ki ngdom f or most of hi s l i f e. He al so st at ed t hat he had onl y

ar r i ved i n t he Uni t ed St at es i n Mar ch 1999.

I n hi s def ense at t r i al , Tet i oukhi ne expl ai ned t hat not

l ong af t er ar r i vi ng i n t he Uni t ed St at es, he met and bef r i ended

McCoon whi l e they were bot h st ayi ng at a Chabad house ( a J ewi sh

communi t y cent er ) i n Rhode I sl and. Af t er l ear ni ng of Tet i oukhi ne' s

i nt er est i n st ayi ng i n t he count r y, McCoon of f er ed t o adopt hi m.

As part of t hat pr ocess, McCoon br ought hi m a Soci al Secur i t y car d

bear i ng MacEoghan' s name. Al t hough t he par t i es now agr ee t hat

McCoon never act ual l y adopt ed Tet i oukhi ne, t he l at t er t r ust ed t hat

t hi s pur por t ed adopt i on was l egi t i mat e. He al so t est i f i ed t hat i n

-5-


6/21

t he Sovi et Uni on, adopt ees r egul ar l y changed t hei r names, bi r t h

dat es, and ot her i dent i f i er s as par t of t he adopt i on pr ocess. He

t hus bel i eved t hat he had t he r i ght t o t ake on MacEoghan' s

i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on as hi s own.

B. Tetioukhine's Expert Testimony Proffer

Bef or e t r i al , Tet i oukhi ne i nf or med t he gover nment t hat he

i nt ended t o cal l an exper t wi t ness, Ser gei Khr ushchev, i n hi s

def ense. Khr ushchev i s the son of f or mer Sovi et Pr emi er Ni ki t a

Khr ushchev. At t he t i me of t r i al , t he younger Khr ushchev was a

seni or f el l ow at t he Wat son I nst i t ut e f or I nt er nat i onal St udi es at

Br own Uni ver si t y i n Pr ovi dence, Rhode I sl and.

Tet i oukhi ne provi ded t he gover nment wi t h i ni t i al

i nf or mat i on r egar di ng Khr ushchev vi a a l et t er dat ed J ul y 20, 2011.

Thi s mi ssi ve st at ed t hat Khr ushchev woul d t est i f y "about t he

cul t ur al and pol i t i cal exper i ence of Sovi et ci t i zens i n 1991 as

wel l as t he exper i ence of Russi an J ews i n t he Sovi et Uni on as wel l

as i n t he Uni t ed St at es at t he t i me of Mr . Tet i oukhi ne' s ar r i val . "

Khr ushchev' s at t ached cur r i cul um vi t ae addr essed hi s knowl edge of

"Russi an economi c and pol i t i cal r ef or ms" and "US- Sovi et r el at i ons. "

I n ear l y August 2011, Tet i oukhi ne suppl ement ed t hi s di scl osur e wi t h

a br i ef t wo- page l et t er t hat i dent i f i ed t hr ee br oad subj ect s of

Khr ushchev' s pr oposed t est i mony: ( 1) adopt i on pr act i ces i n t he

Sovi et Uni on; ( 2) " t he exper i ence of a Russi an J ewi sh i mmi gr ant t o

Rhode I sl and i n t he 1990s" ; and ( 3) " l at e Sovi et er a Amer i can

-6-


7/21

pr opaganda, " whi ch woul d show t hat "Russi ans bel i eved t hat comi ng

t o t he Uni t ed St at es was a ver y si mpl e pr ocess and t hat cent r al i zed

gover nment and bur eaucracy was ext r emel y l i mi t ed. "

The government sought t o precl ude Khr ushchev' s t est i mony.

The di st r i ct cour t hel d a hear i ng on August 4, 2011, where i t asked

Tet i oukhi ne t o make an or al of f er of proof r egar di ng t he speci f i c

t est i mony he i nt ended t o el i ci t f r om Khr ushchev. Def ense counsel

noted that Khr ushchev was pr esent at t he hear i ng and of f er ed t o

have hi m t est i f y, but t he t r i al j udge r ei t er at ed t hat counsel

shoul d make an oral pr of f er .

The pr of f er t hat f ol l owed f ocused heavi l y on Khr ushchev' s

exper t i se i n "t he di f f er ences bet ween Sovi et and Russi an cul t ur e

and t he cul t ur e of t he Uni t ed St at es, " and how t hese di f f er ences

mi ght " i mpact [ t he] deci si on maki ng" of " l eader s and of

i ndi vi dual s. " Counsel al so di scussed, i nt er al i a, Khr ushchev' s

knowl edge of pr opaganda that had ci r cul ated i n t he Sovi et Uni on,

whi ch por t r ayed t he Uni t ed St at es " as a soci et y wi t h l i t t l e or no

bur eaucr acy" and "a ver y f r ee count r y wher e f orei gner s wer e

wel come. " Tet i oukhi ne' s counsel suggest ed t hat t hi s per cept i on

woul d but t r ess t he l egi t i macy of Tet i oukhi ne' s subj ect i ve bel i ef i n

hi s adopt i on.

At t he hear i ng' s concl usi on, t he cour t excl uded

Khr ushchev' s t est i mony on t he basi s t hat i t l acked r el evance, woul d

-7-


8/21

not be hel pf ul t o t he j ur y, and woul d "conf use and [ ] obf uscate t he

r eal i ssues. "

C. The Trial and Tetioukhine's Impeachment

For i t s par t , t he gover nment i nf or med the cour t and

def ense counsel bef or e t r i al t hat i f Tet i oukhi ne t ook t he st and on

hi s own behal f , t he government woul d i mpeach hi s t est i mony wi t h hi s

1996 convi ct i on f or l ar ceny i n a bui l di ng. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch.

266, 20. The convi ct i on ar ose f r om Tet i oukhi ne' s t hef t of

mul t i pl e pi eces of gol d over sever al mont hs f r omhi s t hen- empl oyer ,

a j ewel r y company. Pr i or t o t r i al , def endant moved t o excl ude t hi s

t est i mony. The cour t def er r ed r ul i ng on t hi s mot i on unt i l t r i al .

At t r i al , Tet i oukhi ne t ook t he st and i n hi s own def ense.

He por t r ayed hi msel f as a dut i f ul , gai nf ul l y empl oyed per son whose

assumpt i on of MacEoghan' s i dent i t y was consi st ent wi t h hi s desi r e

t o f ol l ow t he l aw. When t he subj ect of Tet i oukhi ne' s pr i or

empl oyment at t he j ewel r y company arose, he st at ed t hat he had

wor ked t her e f or f our or f i ve mont hs, and t hat he had l ef t t hat j ob

and event ual l y f ound anot her posi t i on. He di d not ment i on t he

r eason f or hi s depar t ur e f r om t he j ewel r y company. Tet i oukhi ne

al so t est i f i ed r egar di ng ot her j obs he had hel d dur i ng hi s year s i n

t he count r y.

Af t er t hi s t est i mony, t he gover nment ar gued Tet i oukhi ne

had opened t he door t o admi t t i ng hi s pr i or convi ct i on by l eavi ng

"t he i nf er ence t hat he i s a l aw- abi di ng ci t i zen wi t h a sol i d

-8-


9/21

empl oyment hi st or y" who "f ol l ow[ ed] t he l aw and pa[ i d] hi s t axes. "

Al t hough the cour t di d not agr ee t hat t he door had been opened t o

t he convi cti on i t sel f , i t per mi t t ed a l i mi t ed l i ne of quest i oni ng

r egar di ng t he ci r cumst ances of Tet i oukhi ne' s depar t ur e f r om hi s

f ormer empl oyer .

When t he government r esumed quest i oni ng and asked

Tet i oukhi ne about t he i nci dent , he t est i f i ed t hat he had onl y

st ol en "a t i ny pi ece of gol d. " The gover nment chal l enged t hi s

asser t i on, and Tet i oukhi ne r esponded by mi ni mi zi ng t he ser i ousness

of hi s t hef t s. For exampl e, Tet i oukhi ne t est i f i ed t hat " [ t ] hi s

never went t o cour t . . . . They pr omi sed me t o basi cal l y dr op t he

case or somet hi ng l i ke t hat , and t hat was t he st or y. " The cour t

r ul ed t hat Tet i oukhi ne had now made the convi ct i on i t sel f

admi ss i bl e. The gover nment t hen asked Tet i oukhi ne whet her he had

pl eaded gui l t y t o l arceny i n 1996, and def endant admi t t ed t hat he

had.

At t he t r i al ' s concl usi on, Tet i oukhi ne was f ound gui l t y

of ei ght count s of t he i ndi ct ment , one of t he aggr avat ed i dent i t y

t hef t count s havi ng been di smi ssed bef or e t r i al on the gover nment ' s

mot i on. Af t er t he j ur y r ender ed i t s ver di ct , t he cour t l at er

di smi ssed anot her of t he aggr avat ed i dent i t y t hef t count s. The

cour t t hen sent enced Tet i ouhki ne to 48 mont hs i n pr i son.

Tet i ouhki ne f i l ed a t i mel y appeal of t he j udgment of gui l t on t he

r emai ni ng seven counts.

-9-


10/21

II.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs f or

abuse of di scr et i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Chi ar adi o, 684 F. 3d 265,

277 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ; Uni t ed St at es v. Landr y, 631 F. 3d 597, 604

( 1st Ci r . 2011) . We do not subst i t ut e our vi ews f or t hose of t he

di st r i ct cour t . I nst ead, we def er t o t he t r i al j udge' s sound

j udgment , vacat i ng onl y when "a r el evant f act or deser vi ng of

si gni f i cant wei ght i s over l ooked, or when an i mpr oper f act or i s

accor ded si gni f i cant wei ght , or when the cour t consi der s t he

appr opr i ate mi x of f act or s, but commi t s a pal pabl e er r or of

j udgment i n cal i brat i ng t he deci si onal scal es. " Uni t ed St at es v.

Nguyen, 542 F. 3d 275, 281 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Uni t ed St ates v.

Rober t s, 978 F. 2d 17, 21 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

A. The Exclusion of Khrushchev's Testimony

Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 702 pr ovi des t hat " [ a] wi t ness

who i s qual i f i ed as an exper t by knowl edge, ski l l , exper i ence,

t r ai ni ng, or educat i on may t est i f y i n t he f or m of an opi ni on" i f

hi s "sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or ot her speci al i zed knowl edge wi l l

hel p t he t r i er of f act t o under st and t he evi dence or t o det er mi ne

a f act i n i ssue. " Fed. R. Evi d. 702( a) . Thi s evi dence, even i f i t

passes t he r equi r ement s of Rul e 702, r emai ns subj ect t o Rul e 403' s

bal anci ng t est . See Uni t ed St at es v. Pi r es, 642 F. 3d 1, 12 ( 1st

Ci r . 2011) ; see al so Fed. R. Evi d. 403 ( per mi t t i ng cour t t o excl ude

-10-


11/21

r el evant t est i mony i f pr obat i ve val ue i s " subst ant i al l y out wei ghed"

by danger of , i nt er al i a, unf ai r pr ej udi ce, conf usi on, or

mi sl eadi ng j ur y) .

The proponent of t he evi dence bear s t he bur den of

demonst r at i ng i t s admi ssi bi l i t y. See Har r i son v. Sear s, Roebuck &

Co. , 981 F. 2d 25, 30 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) . Accor di ngl y, t he pr oponent

must expl ai n t o t he t r i al j udge why t he exper t ' s t est i mony meet s

t he requi r ement s of Rul e 702, so t hat t he cour t can make an

appr opr i at e assessment of i t s admi ssi bi l i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v.

Downi ng, 753 F. 2d 1224, 1242 ( 3d Ci r . 1991) ( hol di ng that "a

def endant who seeks t he admi ss i on of exper t t est i mony must make an

on- t he- r ecor d det ai l ed pr of f er t o t he cour t , i ncl udi ng an

expl anat i on of pr eci sel y how t he exper t ' s t est i mony i s r el evant t o

t he [ i ssues i n di sput e] ") .

Tet i oukhi ne' s sol e def ense was t hat he l acked t he

r equi si t e i nt ent t o be gui l t y of mi sappr opr i at i ng MacEoghan' s

i dent i t y. To advance t hi s def ense, he t est i f i ed t o hi s bel i ef t hat

McCoon had l egal l y adopt ed hi m and that he was unaware of t he t r ue

Fi onghal MacEoghan' s exi st ence. Under t hese ci r cumst ances, he

genui nel y bel i eved t hat t he pur por t ed adopt i on l awf ul l y per mi t t ed

hi m t o take on a name, bi r t h dat e, and backgr ound di f f er ent f r om

t hose r el at ed t o hi s own bi r t h, and t hat he was t her ef or e t el l i ng

t he t r uth as he knew i t when he repr esent ed hi msel f as MacEoghan t o

t he wor l d.

-11-


12/21

Recogni zi ng t hat t hi s t heor y mi ght seemi mpl ausi bl e to a

j ury, Tet i oukhi ne ar gued t o t he cour t t hat Khr ushchev' s "cul t ural

cont ext " t est i mony woul d have shown t hat hi s bel i ef s wer e

"subj ect i vel y r easonabl e. " We t ake t hi s asser t i on t o mean t hat a

r easonabl e per son who shar ed hi s nat i onal i t y and cul t ur al

backgr ound woul d have al so shar ed hi s vi ew of hi s adopt i on. 2

Accept i ng, f or t he pur poses of eval uat i ng hi s evi dent i ar y cl ai m,

t hat Tet i oukhi ne' s subj ect i vel y reasonabl e bel i ef s woul d have been

pr obat i ve of hi s l ack of t he r equi si t e i nt ent , we not e t hat

def endant ' s i ni t i al wr i t t en di scl osur es di d l i t t l e t o el uci dat e t he

l i nk bet ween Tet i oukhi ne' s def ense and Khr ushchev' s subj ect s of

exper t i se. The suppl ement al l et t er sent i n August 2011 cont ai ned

more speci f i cs r egardi ng Khr ushchev' s pr oposed t est i mony. Once

agai n, however , i t s broad st at ement s r egardi ng Amer i can pr opaganda

i n the f or mer Sovi et Uni on and "t he exper i ence of a Russi an J ewi sh

i mmi gr ant t o Rhode I sl and" bore onl y a sl ender connect i on t o t he

key di sput es i n t he case.

Of cour se, t he r el evance of exper t t est i mony regar di ng

cul t ur al mat t er s i s cont ext - dependent and must be assessed on a

case- by- case basi s. The one gr ai n of r el evance we per cei ve i n

2 Tet i oukhi ne does not f ul l y expl ai n how t he "subj ect i ver easonabl eness" of hi s bel i ef s f i t s i nt o hi s def ense. What everl abel s he af f i xes t o hi s t heor y of t he case, however , we t ake hi score cont ent i on t o be t hat he bel i eved he was act i ng l awf ul l y whenhe used MacEoghan' s i dent i f yi ng i nf ormat i on as hi s own. As t hepar t i es do not di sput e t hat such a bel i ef woul d serve as a def enset o al l char ges, we accept t he pr oposi t i on f or pr esent pur poses.

-12-


13/21

Khr ushchev' s pr oposed t est i mony concerned Russi an adopt i on l aw,

cust om, and pr act i ce. Test i mony about t hi s subj ect mi ght have

but t r essed Tet i oukhi ne' s pur por t ed bel i ef t hat , once adopt ed by

McCoon, he coul d l awf ul l y use MacEoghan' s i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on

as hi s own.

Gi ven t he vagueness of def endant ' s pr et r i al di scl osur es,

Tet i oukhi ne' s or al prof f er af f or ded hi m a cr i t i cal oppor t uni t y t o

f ocus on t hi s aspect of Khr ushchev' s pr oposed t est i mony. I nst ead,

t he or al pr of f er was l ar ded wi t h t he same gener al r ef er ences t o

cul t ur al di f f er ences descri bed i n t he wr i t t en di scl osur es.

Counsel ' s at t empt s t o expl ai n t he si gni f i cance of Amer i can

pr opaganda avai l abl e t o peopl e i n the Sovi et Uni on, and t he

supposed per cept i on of t he f r i endl y and wel comi ng natur e of

Amer i can soci et y, of t en devol ved i nt o unhel pf ul abst r act i ons t hat

f ai l ed t o bui l d t he cruci al br i dge t o t he i ssue of Tet i oukhi ne' s

i nt ent .

The f ol l owi ng exchange was embl emat i c of t he prof f er ' s

murki ness :

MS. MCELROY: Your Honor , [ Khrushchev]can al so t est i f y about t he expect at i ons t hathe had as an i ndi vi dual , but al so thedi f f er ences - -

THE COURT: That who had?

MS. MCELROY: That Pr of essor Khrushchevhad, t he di f f er ences bet ween t he cul t ur e t hathe exper i enced i n t he Sovi et Uni on and t hecul t ure t hat he exper i enced when he came hereand hi s educat i on i n bot h of t hose cul t ur esbot h bef or e and si nce hi s emi gr at i on t o t he

-13-


14/21

Uni t ed St at es and how t hose cul t ur es workdi f f erent l y. THE COURT: Speci f i cal l y?

MS. MCELROY: Speci f i cal l y t hat some oft he pr opaganda . . . was t hat Amer i ca was asoci et y wi t h l i t t l e or no bur eaucracy; t hat

Amer i ca was a f r ee count r y where f orei gnerswere wel come at al l - - you know, al wayswel come; . . . t hat par t i cul ar l y J ews wer ewel come i n t he Uni t ed St at es.

As t he di st r i ct cour t cor r ect l y not ed, "Russi an cul t ur e i s a ver y

br oad t opi c" wi t h l i t t l e evi dent pr obat i ve val ue, and counsel ' s

st at ement s r egar di ng t he di f f er ent wor ki ngs of t he t wo cul t ur es and

t he Sovi et per cept i on t hat Amer i ca "was a f r ee count r y" di d l i t t l e

t o est abl i sh t he rel evance and hel pf ul ness of Khr ushchev' s

t est i mony. Thus, based on t he i nf or mat i on pr esent ed, t he di st r i ct

cour t was wi t hi n i t s di scr et i on t o concl ude t hat Khr ushchev' s

pr oposed t est i mony was l ar gel y i r r el evant and unhel pf ul . Cf .

Uni t ed St at es v. Sebaggal a, 256 F. 3d 59, 66 ( 1st Ci r . 2001)

( concl udi ng t hat t r i al j udge di d not abuse di scret i on i n excl udi ng

t est i mony r egar di ng "cul t ur al t r i bal t r ai t s and cust oms" due t o i t s

" t enuous" connect i on t o i ssues i n case) .

Despi t e def ense counsel ' s unf ocused exposi t i on of

Khr ushchev' s pr oposed t est i mony, t he di st r i ct cour t di d addr ess t he

r el evance of exper t t est i mony concer ni ng Russi an adopt i on

pr act i ces. The cour t ul t i mat el y char act er i zed t hat t est i mony as

i r r el evant because Khr ushchev woul d speak t o chi l d adopt i on

pr act i ces, wher eas Tet i oukhi ne was adopt ed as an adul t . To t he

ext ent t hat Khr ushchev had any rel evant t est i mony t o of f er on t he

-14-


15/21

subj ect of adopt i on, however , we di scern an i ndependent basi s f or

excl udi ng i t . See Samaan v. St . J oseph Hosp. , 670 F. 3d 21, 31 n. 4

( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( af f i r mi ng excl usi on of exper t t est i mony on basi s

ot her t han di st r i ct cour t ' s r at i onal e) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v.

Wi nt er mut e, 443 F. 3d 993, 1000 ( 8t h Ci r . 2006) ( st at i ng t hat

appel l at e cour t may af f i r m di st r i ct cour t ' s deci si on t o admi t

expert t est i mony "on any gr ound suppor t ed by t he r ecor d, even i f

t hat gr ound was not a basi s f or t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r ul i ng") .

Speci f i cal l y, t her e was l i t t l e, i f anyt hi ng, i n Khr ushchev' s

backgr ound t hat woul d qual i f y hi mt o of f er opi ni ons about adopt i on

pr act i ces at al l . See Fed. R. Evi d. 702( a) ( r equi r i ng exper t t o

have "sci ent i f i c, t echni cal , or ot her speci al i zed knowl edge") . Hi s

st at ed ar eas of compet ence and hi s publ i cat i on r ecor d f ocus heavi l y

on wor l d af f ai r s and nat i onal secur i t y i ssues, r at her t han f ami l y

l aw and adopt i on cust oms i n t he f ormer Sovi et Uni on. I ndeed, hi s

avowed knowl edge i n t he l at t er area was "pur el y anecdotal , " Uni t ed

St at es v. Gi ambr o, 544 F. 3d 26, 33 ( 1st Ci r . 2008) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , t he si mpl e r esul t of havi ng l i ved i n t he

f or mer Sovi et Uni on. Tet i oukhi ne hi msel f was equal l y capabl e of

t est i f yi ng t o t hese mat t er s, as he di d. Ther e was no basi s f or

accor di ng Khr ushchev t he i mpr i mat ur of an "expert " i n an area where

he l acked speci al i zed knowl edge.

-15-


16/21

For t hese reasons, we see no basi s f or over t ur ni ng t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s excl usi on of Khr ushchev' s t est i mony. 3

B. The Admission of Tetioukhine's 1996 Conviction

A par t y may i nt r oduce evi dence t o i mpeach a wi t ness' s

speci f i c t est i mony by cont r adi ct i on. See Uni t ed St at es v. Nor t on,

26 F. 3d 240, 244 ( 1st Ci r . 1994) . Wher e t hi s evi dence i s used t o

"cont r adi ct mat er i al f al se t est i mony i nj ect ed i nt o t he t r i al by

[ t he def endant ] hi msel f , " " t he gener al st r i ct ur es" of Feder al Rul es

of Evi dence 402 and 403 gover n. I d. ; see al so Fed. R. Evi d. 402

( st at i ng t hat r el evant evi dence i s admi ssi bl e unl ess U. S.

Const i t ut i on, f eder al st at ut e, or r ul es say ot her wi se) ; i d. 403

( al l owi ng excl usi on of r el evant t est i mony i f "i t s pr obat i ve val ue

i s subst ant i al l y out wei ghed" by danger of , i nt er al i a, unf ai r

pr ej udi ce) . The def endant may open t he door t o such evi dence even

i f i t i s ot her wi se i nadmi ssi bl e. See Landr y, 631 F. 3d at 605.

Thi s pr i nci pl e appl i es t o t he admi ssi on of pr i or

convi ct i ons. Feder al Rul e of Evi dence 609 set s t he l i mi t s on t he

admi ssi bi l i t y of a convi ct i on t o i mpeach a wi t ness' s over al l

char act er f or t r ut hf ul ness, par t i cul ar l y i f , as her e, t he

3 Khr ushchev was pr esent dur i ng t he pr of f er and def ensecounsel of f er ed t o l et t he cour t voi r di r e hi m i n or der t o cl ar i f y

any uncer t ai nt y regar di ng t he speci f i c subj ect s of hi s t est i mony.Tet i oukhi ne does not ar gue, however , t hat t he cour t abused i t sdi scr et i on i n r el yi ng onl y on hi s or al pr of f er . Mor eover , "[ t ] het r i al cour t enj oys br oad l at i t ude i n execut i ng i t s gat e- keepi ngf unct i on; t her e i s no par t i cul ar pr ocedur e i t i s r equi r ed t of ol l ow. " Uni t ed St at es v. Var gas, 471 F. 3d 255, 261 ( 1st Ci r .2006) .

-16-


17/21

convi ct i on was obt ai ned or t he def endant was rel eased f r om

i ncar cer at i on over t en year s ago. See Fed. R. Evi d. 609( b) ( 1)

( al l owi ng admi ssi on of convi ct i on t en year s or ol der onl y i f "i t s

pr obat i ve val ue . . . subst ant i al l y out wei ghs i t s pr ej udi ci al

ef f ect " ) . Never t hel ess, Rul e 609 "does not addr ess t he

admi ssi bi l i t y of pr i or convi ct i ons when t hey ar e of f er ed f or

anot her pur pose, " such as cont r adi ct i ng speci f i c t est i mony.

Nort on, 26 F. 3d at 243. Thus, "a def endant can . . . open t he door

t o evi dence about pr i or convi ct i ons" under Rul es 402 and 403,

Landr y, 631 F. 3d at 605, r egardl ess of whet her t he convi ct i on meet s

Rul e 609' s r equi r ement s, see Uni t ed St at es v. Gi l mor e, 553 F. 3d

266, 272 ( 3d Ci r . 2009) ( " [ P] r i or f el ony convi ct i ons mor e t han t en

years ol d may be used t o i mpeach by cont r adi ct i on even i f t hey do

not sat i sf y Rul e 609' s bal anci ng and not i ce condi t i ons. ") . 4

Here, we addr ess t wo separat e door openi ngs. The

di st r i ct cour t concl uded t hat t he f i r st door opened af t er

Tet i oukhi ne por t r ayed hi msel f as a l aw- abi di ng person wi t h a sol i d

wor k hi st or y. The cour t per mi t t ed a l i mi t ed l i ne of quest i oni ng

r egar di ng t he f act s of Tet i oukhi ne' s t er mi nat i on f r om t he j ewel r y

company, but di d not admi t t he convi ct i on i t sel f . The second door

4 The bal anci ng t est s of Rul es 403 and 609 di f f er . Under Rul e609( b) , t he pr obat i ve val ue of t he pr i or convi ct i on must"substant i al l y out wei gh[ ] i t s pr ej udi ci al ef f ect " t o j ust i f yadmi ssi on. Fed. R. Evi d. 609( b) ( 1) . Rul e 403, by cont r ast ,per mi t s t he cour t t o excl ude evi dence i f i t s " pr obat i ve val ue i ssubst ant i al l y out wei ghed" by t he danger of , i nt er al i a, unf ai rpr ej udi ce, conf usi ng t he i ssues, or mi sl eadi ng t he j ur y. I d. 403.

-17-


18/21

opened when t he gover nment i nqui r ed about t he ci r cumst ances of hi s

depart ur e, and Tet i oukhi ne downpl ayed t he natur e of hi s conduct .

The cour t t hen deemed t he convi ct i on i t sel f admi ssi bl e as wel l .

The mai n i ssue i n di sput e i s whether t he di st r i ct cour t

cor r ect l y concl uded that Tet i oukhi ne opened t hat f i r st door when i t

st at ed t hat " [ Tet i oukhi ne] sai d t hat he want ed t o f ol l ow t he l aw. "

Def endant argues t hat t hi s r ul i ng was based on a f l awed

r ecol l ect i on of t he t est i mony. We di sagr ee. Tet i oukhi ne t est i f i ed

t hat he obt ai ned a posi t i on at t he j ewel r y company, where he worked

f or " r oughl y about f our or f i ve mont hs. " Hi s counsel t hen asked

whet her he "at some poi nt [ got ] a di f f er ent j ob, " t o whi ch

Tet i oukhi ne r epl i ed "Yes. " He t hen spoke about obt ai ni ng a

posi t i on wi t h an i nvent or y suppl y company, whi ch l at er cl osed,

r equi r i ng hi m t o f i nd wor k wi t h a di f f er ent i nvent or y company. He

al so t est i f i ed r egar di ng t he paper wor k he submi t t ed t o ver i f y hi s

el i gi bi l i t y t o wor k i n t he Uni t ed St at es, whi ch, among ot her

t hi ngs, was necessar y t o wi t hhol d t axes f r om hi s paychecks.

Tet i oukhi ne i s cor r ect t hat he never st at ed expressl y

t hat he l ef t hi s posi t i on wi t h t he j ewel r y company f or i nnocuous

r easons. We al so do not adopt t he government ' s vi ew t hat hi s

t est i mony about hi s at t empt s " t o f ol l ow r ul es r el at i ng t o

empl oyment [ and] i mmi gr at i on" was suf f i ci ent t o open t he door t o

hi s convi ct i on, gi ven t hat t hi s evi dence was mer el y consi st ent wi t h

hi s over al l def ense t hat he had l awf ul l y adopt ed MacEoghan' s

-18-


19/21

i dent i t y. Never t hel ess, Tet i oukhi ne i nvi t ed quest i oni ng about t he

ci r cumst ances of hi s depart ur e f r om t he j ewel r y company when he

i nt r oduced speci f i c t est i mony about hi s empl oyment f or t he apparent

pur pose of enhanci ng hi s sel f - por t r ayal as a l aw- abi di ng ci t i zen.

Hi s st at ement s l ef t t he j ur y wi t h t he i mpr essi on t hat he had an

unpr obl emat i c wor k hi st or y, and t hat he had qui t hi s j ob wi t h t he

j ewel r y company si mpl y t o f i nd another posi t i on. The omi ssi on of

f acts t hat di d not f i t i nt o t hi s nar r at i ve t hus "creat ed a f al se

i mpr essi on t hat made t he ci r cumst ances of [ hi s] t er mi nat i on

r el evant . " Landr y, 631 F. 3d at 605. The openi ng may have been

sl i ght , but we cannot say t hat t he cour t abused i t s di scret i on i n

per mi t t i ng a l i mi t ed l i ne of quest i oni ng r egar di ng t he r eason he

l ef t t he j ewel r y company. See Uni t ed St at es v. Bal t hazard, 360

F. 3d 309, 317 ( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( "By seeki ng t o cr eat e an i mpr essi on

i n t he mi nds of j ur or s t hat Bal t hazar d had had onl y l i mi t ed pr i or

cont act s wi t h l aw enf orcement , Bal t hazar d' s counsel opened t he door

t o quest i oni ng about addi t i onal r epor t s t hat l i nked Bal t hazar d t o

ot her cr i mi nal act i vi t y. ") ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. LeAmous, 754

F. 2d 795, 798 ( 8t h Ci r . 1985) ( "By pai nt i ng a pi ct ur e of hi msel f .

. . as a pr ot ect or of young gi r l s who encour aged al t er nat i ves t o

pr ost i t ut i on, t he def endant i nvi t ed cr oss- exami nat i on concer ni ng

par t i cul ar i nst ances of hi s conduct t o t he cont r ar y dur i ng t he

r el evant t i me f r ame. " ) .

-19-


20/21

Tet i oukhi ne t hen opened t he second door l ar gel y

unprompted. The gover nment asked Tet i oukhi ne whet her t he j ewel r y

company had f i r ed hi m. He acknowl edged t hat i t had, but at t empted

t o r educe t he ser i ousness of hi s mi sdeeds:

Q: You wer e f i r ed f or t aki ng t hi ngsf r om your empl oyer , cor r ect ?

A: That ' s cor r ect .Q: Gol d; cor r ect ?A: Yes. I t was a t i ny pi ece of gol d,

yes.

When t he t r ut h of t hi s l ast asser t i on was chal l enged, Tet i oukhi ne

r esponded that he "wasn' t ar r est ed" f or hi s mi sconduct , t he mat t er

"never went t o [ ] cour t , " t hat he "j ust t al k[ed] t o pol i cemen, " and

"t hey pr omi sed [ ] t o basi cal l y dr op t he case. " Al l of t hese

st atement s wer e patent l y f al se. I ndeed, most of t hese st atement s

wer e vol unt eer ed, r at her t han di r ect l y el i ci t ed by the pr osecut or ' s

quest i ons. Tet i oukhi ne' s r epeat ed "at t empt [ s] t o mi ni mi ze t he

conduct f or whi ch he was convi ct ed, " Uni t ed St at es v. Bayl or , 97

F. 3d 542, 545 ( D. C. Ci r . 1996) , wer e mor e t han suf f i ci ent t o open

t he door t o f ur t her cross- exami nat i on on t hi s subj ect .

On appeal , Tet i oukhi ne unper suasi vel y mai nt ai ns t hat t he

gover nment ' s l i ne of quest i oni ng shoul d have ceased i mmedi atel y

af t er he admi t t ed that he had been t er mi nat ed f or " t aki ng t hi ngs

f r om [ hi s] empl oyer . " Af t er t hat acknowl edgment , t he gover nment

asked onl y a br i ef cl ar i f yi ng quest i on t hat i nqui r ed whet her

Tet i oukhi ne had st ol en gol d. Tet i oukhi ne t hen began di ggi ng

hi msel f i nt o a hol e by st at i ng t hat he had st ol en onl y "a t i ny

-20-


21/21

pi ece of gol d, " l eadi ng t o t he successi on of unt r ut hs t hat opened

t he door f ul l y t o t he admi ssi on of hi s l ar ceny convi ct i on.

III.

Ther e was no abuse of di scr et i on i n t he di st r i ct cour t ' s

evi dent i ar y r ul i ngs. Tet i oukhi ne' s convi ct i ons ar e t her ef or e

af f i r med.

So ordered.

-21-

United States v. Tetioukhine, 1st Cir. (2013)

Documents

Transcript of United States v. Tetioukhine, 1st Cir. (2013)