United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Evidence — hearsay
Recorded conversations between the defendant and a non-testifying confidential informant were properly admitted into evidence.
“Unlike the concerns this court described in Nettles, the aforementioned recorded statements do not amount to instances of the CI ‘put[ting] words in [the defendant’s] mouth.’ 476 F.3d at 518. Nor did the CI’s recorded statements ‘try to persuade [the defendant] to commit more crimes in addition to those that [defendant] had already decided to commit.’ Id. at 518. Here, as in Gaytan, ‘the government offered the challenged statements not for their truth but to put [the defendant’s] own words in context and to help the jury make sense out of his reaction to what [the CI] said and did.’ 649 F.3d at 580. Further, the jury was provided with instructions by the court indicating that the CI’s recorded statements were not to be considered for the truth of the matter asserted, but instead only to provide context for the defendant’s admissions. See Van Sachs, 458 F.3d at 701-02 (district court’s limiting instruction relevant to determination that Confrontation Clause rights were not violated). Because ‘there is no hearsay, the concerns addressed in Crawford do not come in to play.’ Bermea- Boone, 563 F.3d at 626. The district court’s admission of these recorded statements was not in error.”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Guzman, J., Flaum, J.