Motion for Mistrial Based on Hearsay Testimony Rejected
U.S. v. Chavez, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 987404(10th Cir. April 4, 2007).
Chavez and Herrera (next snippet) were codefendants. District Judge allowed agent to testify about audio surveillance he overheard that D’s truck was present at the site of a drug buy, but then reversed herself after the agent testified, ruled the testimony was hearsay and in violation of the confrontation clause, struck the testimony and gave a (bad) curative instruction to the jury. The court denied the defendants’ motion for a mistrial.
Under a harmless error analysis, the testimony of a paid FBI informant covered all the same territory as the hearsay. However, this informant provided the ONLY other evidence, and that was good enough for the 10th.
In both this and the Herrera opinion, the 10th stresses that this prosecution was the result of a 4 year investigation. What's a little claim to due process when weighed against a four-year investigation by the government?
Chavez and Herrera (next snippet) were codefendants. District Judge allowed agent to testify about audio surveillance he overheard that D’s truck was present at the site of a drug buy, but then reversed herself after the agent testified, ruled the testimony was hearsay and in violation of the confrontation clause, struck the testimony and gave a (bad) curative instruction to the jury. The court denied the defendants’ motion for a mistrial.
Under a harmless error analysis, the testimony of a paid FBI informant covered all the same territory as the hearsay. However, this informant provided the ONLY other evidence, and that was good enough for the 10th.
In both this and the Herrera opinion, the 10th stresses that this prosecution was the result of a 4 year investigation. What's a little claim to due process when weighed against a four-year investigation by the government?
posted by Anonymous at 9:54 AM
<< Home