Criminal Procedure;Confrontation Clause

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure;Confrontation Clause

Where a confidential informant’s statements were only admitted to provide context for an officer’s testimony, their admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

“Here, the CI’s statements were clearly contextual. Wright’s key admission that he was ‘stocked up’ on drugs and had several weeks’ supply for sale was not made in a vacuum, but in response to the CI’s inquiries. See Foster, 701 F.3d at 1152 (‘[T]he statements were offered to provide relevant background to the defendant’s responses, enabling the jurors to comprehend the conversation as a whole.’). Without the CI’s statements, Wright’s responses would have been unintelligible, and a jury would not have any sense of why the conversation was even happening. See, e.g., id. at 1152 (‘Foster’s statements would have been unintelligible without reference to the CI’s statements[.]’). Of course, we must be vigilant to ensure that the government does not ‘seek to admit based on “context” statements that are, in fact, being offered for their truth.’ United States v. Nettles, 476 F.3d 508, 517 (7th Cir. 2007); see, e.g., Walker, 673 F.3d at 657 (CI’s statement that the defendant gave him a revolver, directly relevant to the defendant’s guilt, should not have been admitted); cf. United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 719 (7th Cir. 2010) (overruling ‘inextricable Intertwinement’ exemption from Rule 404(b) standard). But here it is difficult to imagine how the CI’s statements independently establish any fact relevant to Wright’s guilt. Most of the CI’s statements were inquiries, not factual assertions. See, e.g., Nettles, 476 F.3d at 518 (‘Sometimes, [the declarant] asked questions (presumably in order to elicit more incriminating information from [the defendant]), . . . [but] does not appear to say anything of substance.’). And the CI’s only factual assertion was that some ‘guy’ was asking the CI for drugs, but that testimony was not offered to show that some ‘guy’ actually wanted drugs from the CI—the assertion was plainly being used as a ruse, which led to Wright’s key admissions. See United States v. Gaytan, 649 F.3d 573, 580 (7th Cir. 2011) (‘These statements were not being offered to show that some “dude” with Gaytan’s brother actually wanted to buy two ounces of “rock”; the statements were offered to show their effect on the listener, Gaytan.’); Walker, 673 F.3d at 657 (‘[The CI] was following an ATF script when he enlisted and plotted with the defendants to rob the phony stash house, so his parts of the recorded conversations were offered to make the defendant’s statements intelligible.’). So there
was no constitutional violation.”

Affirmed.

12-3425 U.S. v. Wright

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Bucklo, J., Williams, J.

Full Text