- 24 -
offer the passports into evidence. United States v. Brown,
supra. The Government's failure to meet the notice requirement
did not prevent admission of the passports because the defendants
had a fair opportunity to attack the trustworthiness of their own
passports. Id.
In Piva, work sheets and information about job applicants
were held to be admissible even though the notice requirement was
not met. The trial lasted more than a year after the evidence
was admitted, during which the other party could have moved to
strike it or could have rebutted it with additional evidence.
Also, the opposing party had ample opportunity to attack the
trustworthiness of the evidence through extensive cross-
examination, and the trial court found that the evidence was
reliable. Piva v. Xerox Corp., supra at 595-596.
This case is very different from Brown and Piva. Respondent
elicited very detailed testimony from Hodges and Hogue.
Petitioner had no notice of the testimony except for a general
reference in respondent's pretrial memorandum. Respondent
contends that petitioner had a fair opportunity to cross-examine
Hodges and Hogue. We disagree. Although petitioners' counsel
had cross-examined Hodges and Hogue, respondent's pretrial
memorandum did not help petitioners to prepare for it.
Petitioners' counsel telephoned both Hodges and Hogue about a
week before trial to ask about their testimony. However, neither
agent responded to his inquiry. We hold that respondent did not
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011