US v. Malpica-Garcia, No. 05-2728 affirms the conviction of a gentleman that was “conspiring to possess and distribute drugs and of conspiring to possess and use firearms in furtherance of drug trafficking.” He argues that there was a confrontation clause violation, and that his fifth amendment rights were violated because the judge allowed testimony about his possession of a weapon that was not charged in the indictment (aka constructive indictment). However, the First seems to say that this material is in a superceding indictment.
Applying Washington v. Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the First assumes without deciding that a statement regarding with protection money is hearsay, the First finds that it wasn’t testimonial, because “The record includes no indication that Díaz-Pastrana was repeating statements that [the declarant] made to police, in an investigative context, or in a courtroom setting.” Likewise, because certain remarks that were “part of private conversations or were casual remarks made without any expectation that the information would be saved and used at a trial” were admitted, they didn’t violate Crawford. There isn’t much analysis here, so I don’t know what use it is.
CA1: all the things that aren’t Crawford
Comments