16
into evidence to show that petitioner-husband had made three cash
deposits of $9,500 each on April 4, 1991, to three bank accounts.
However, Exhibit AG does not differ substantially from his
testimony. The bank's criminal referral report said that
petitioner-husband deposited $28,500 in "new, crisp $100 bills"
in three bank accounts. Respondent contends that this impeaches
petitioner-husband's testimony that the money he deposited was
from cash he had in his safe in Brazil since 1989. We disagree.
The fact that the $100 bills were new and crisp in 1991 does not
establish that the bills were issued after 1986; they may simply
have been uncirculated. Thus, Exhibit AH does not impeach
petitioner-husband's testimony that the cash he deposited was
from his safe in Brazil.
Respondent contends that petitioner-husband's lack of memory
about the nature of the April 4, 1991, deposits is analogous to a
denial. Respondent relies on United States v. DiCaro, 772 F.2d
1314, 1321-1322 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Rogers, 549
F.2d 490, 496 (8th Cir. 1976). Respondent's reliance on those
cases is misplaced. In United States v. DiCaro, supra at 1321-
1322, a witness had testified to certain facts before a grand
jury but claimed to have forgotten those facts by the time of
trial. See, e.g., United States v. Murphy, 696 F.2d 282, 284
(4th Cir. 1982) (witness' lack of memory impeached by his prior
grand jury testimony); United States v. Rogers, 549 F.2d 490,
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011