Criminal Procedure — Confrontation Clause — plain error

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — Confrontation Clause — plain error

Even if it violated the Confrontation Clause for a chemist who did not analyze the evidence to testify, on plain error review, the defendant failed to show his substantial rights were affected.

“Garvey cannot demonstrate that, absent Nied’s testimony, the outcome of the trial probably would have been different. First, the government correctly notes that Nied’s testimony regarding the weight of the substance contained in the exhibits was not essential to the jury’s verdict. The indictment alleged only that Garvey knowingly ‘distributed a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine,’ and did not specify a quantity. Nor did the jury make any findings regarding the quantity of methamphetamine sold for sentencing purposes. Thus, this case is readily distinguishable from United States v. Taylor, 471 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2006), on which Garvey relies.”

Affirmed.

11-2201 U.S. v. Garvey

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Conley, J., Kanne, J.