## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 4013 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OHNN IE L. T A Y L OR, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Illino is. No . 06 C R 30114

—David R. H ern don, Chief Ju dge .
A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 17, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UNE 26, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, K ANN E , a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Th e ap p ell an t, John nie Ta ylor, w as acc us ed of b e in g a felon in pos session of a fi rearm and w as tr i ed twice i n fro nt o fa j ury. The fi rs t t ri al re sul ted in a deadl ock ed j ury, pro m pti ng the co urt to decl ar e a m i str i al

. A t the se cond tr i al, the j ury f ound Tayl or g ui l tya s ch ar g ed. On appe al, Ta y lor p rese nt s th r ee a r g um ents, the fi rs t t w o ofwh i ch r el ate to the m i str i al

. Fi rs t, Ta y l o r a r g ue s t hat th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n de cl ar i ng the m i str i al

. S eco nd , he c l ai m s that t ri alco unsel was2 N o. 07

- 4013 ineffective becau se th e a t t o r ne y d id n ot seek T aylor’s in p u t o n w h et h er to rec om m en d to th e c ou rtth at it decl ar e a m i str i al

. Tayl or ’ s thi rd argum ent, wh i ch involves T aylor’s secon d tri al, i s t h a t th e d istri ct cou rt shoul d ha ve excl ud ed cer tai n sta tem ents f ro m the gov ernm en t’s eviden c e . W e find no m erit in T aylor’s c l a i ms a n d n o w a ffi r m.

I. B ACK GR OUN D I n the early eveni ng o fS eptem ber12 , 20 05, l oca l l aw enf or cem ent r esponded to a dom est i c di st u rbance ca l l at an apar tm ent c om p lex in Alo rt on, I l l i noi s. Pol i ce Offi cer R ick Schell w as th e firs t t o a rri ve on the sc en e, w he re he spok e with M ar y W eave r, the w om an wh o had place d the ca ll. W eave r poi nted acr oss the str eetand i nfo rm ed Schel l that a m an l ate r i denti fi ed as J ohnni e Ta ylo r h ad tak en a gu n in t h at dir ecti on. S he sa i d that Tay l orto ok th e we a p o n t o a ma n s h e c a l l e d “ Ma r i o , ” wh o the p olic e s u b se q u en tly lea rn ed w as M ar io D ow ell. Looking i n the dir ecti on that W eave r poi nted, Offi cer S c he l l s a w Do we l l wo r k i ng o n a n a ut o mob i l e i n f r o nto f a nei ghbor i ng apar tm ent b uil ding. A t the sa m e t i m e, Tayl orappeare d a n d ap proa ched Offi cerS chel l fro m ac r o ss the st reet
. W arne d b y W ea ve r tha t Ta y l o r might be a rm ed, Offi cerS chel l han d c u ffed Tayl orand check ed hi m f ora w eapon, fi nd i ng none. Chie fLeondra H ughes an d Ca pta i n Robe r t Cum m i ng s th ena rri ved onthe scene and bega n i nvest i gat i ng the handgun’s w here

abouts

. U pon q uesti oni ng byH ughes, Dow el l adm i tte d that Tayl orhad gi ven him a gun and thathe ha d hiddenN o. 07

- 4013 3 i t f orTayl ori n a thi rd party’s ap ar tm ent. Dow el l then l ed th e po l i c e t o the g un ’ s hi di ng pl a c e , whe r e the y r eco ve r ed th e wea po n. On Augu st1 8, 2 00 6, the g o ve r nm en t fi l ed a tw o-count i nd i ctm ent a gai nst Tay l or, o nl y the fi rs t c ou nt o fwh i ch is at issue on th is ap p eal. T ha t cou nt all eged th at T a y lor, w ho had pre vi ousl y b een c onvi cted o fburg l ar y, was a fel on i n posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m i n vi ol ati on o f 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g)( 1). Ta y l o r ’ s fi rst j ur y t r i alb eg ano n J une 1 8, 2 00 7. The p resen tation of eviden ce took ap p ro xim ately six hou rs ove r tw o days a nd co ncl ud ed shortlyafter2: 30 p. m . o n th e afte r no o n o fJ une 1 9. A fter fi na l i ns tr uct i o ns , the j u ry be ga n d elib er at ion s t h at sa m e a fte rn oo n at3:58 p .m ., and t h e c ou rtr eces sed at5: 10 p. m . The j ury re sum ed del iber ati ons at 9: 00 a. m . the next m or ni ng, Ju n e 2 0, and deliber ate d thro ughout the day. Th e j ur y s e nt thr e e no t e s t o the j ud g e o v e r the co urse of its d eliber ati ons on J une 20. I n the fi rs t, the j ury re q u es te d to reh ea r M ar y W ea ve r’ s 9 11 te lep h on e c all and the r eco rded sta te m en ts Tayl orand Dow el l had gi ven t o the pol i ce. I n the seco n d n ote , the j ury ask ed f or cl ar i fi ca tion o n a po i nto fChi efHughe s’ s te st i m o ny . The cour t g ra nt ed t he fi rs t r equest and, w hi l e work i ng with the a t t o r ne y s t o f o r mul a t e a r e s po ns e t o the se co nd , re cei ved the j ury’s thi rd not e. S ent t o the j ud ge at 3: 50 p. m . , the thi rd not e r ead: “W e a re und ec id ed o n gui l ty/not gui l ty. There ar e s eve ra l p oi nts we can’ t a gr ee o n. The j ur y i s di vi ded o n whe th ert o c o nt i nue . Yo ur d ir ection i s requ ired.” A fter discu ssions w ith both attor-4 N o. 07

- 4013 neys, the cour t s ent the r equeste d tr anscr i pt excer pt of Chi efHughe s’ s te st i m o ny a nd s ta te d o nl y, “ Pl eas e co nside r the C ou rt’s r e p ly to your req ue st regard ing C hief’s H ug he s [ si c] t es ti m o ny a nd i n c o nj unc ti o n wi tha l l the othe r evi dence i n th e c ase. ” The j ury l ate r ask ed to ad j ou rn for t h e d ay , w r i t i n g th at “w e a re ag gr es siv ely going o ver( fl ow chart i ng) ea ch w i tness and pie ce o f evi dence to a rrive ata unanim ous deci si on. ” The j ud ge gr anted the j ury’ s r equest and rec ess ed the cour t a t 5 : 0 0 p . m. The j ury re turned f ora thi rd day o fd elib er ati ons at 9 : 0 0 a . m. o n J un e 2 1
. At1 0 : 1 0 a. m. , the c o ur tr e c e i v e d a note fro m the j ury that re ad as f ol l ows: W e, the j ury, ar e “ deadlo cked” i n deci si on

— si nce day 1 unti l to d ay. W e a re 8 gui l ty and 4 not gui l ty

— th i s s p i t[ s i c ] h a s n o tc h a n g e d s i n c e we be g an. W e ha ve de ba te d e ac h wi tn es s’ t es ti m o ny and piec e o fev i dence and no j urorhas cha n ged the i r v e r di c t
. We a s kthe c o ur tt o a c c e pto urde a dl ock ed condi ti on a nd co ncl usi on t o thi s ca se. T he j udg e so ug hti nputfr o m b o ththe pr o se cut o r a nd defe nse c ounsel

. The pro secuto r sugge st ed thatthe j ud ge encour age the j ury to continue i ts del iber ati ons. Defense c ou n se l, c iti n g c o n c er n s t h at th e jur y w ou ld “c av e in one way o r the o th er, ” r ec o m m en ded th atthe c o urt ac ce pt t he j ur y ’ s r eque sta nd de cl ar e a m i st r i al

. The j ud ge, afterd isc ussi ng the l ength ofthe prese ntati on o f evi dence duri ng the tr i aland of th e j ury’ s del iber ati ons, the s i m pli ci ty ofthe i ssues , the j ury’ s co m m unica ti ons, an d h is c oncer ns abo ut the potenti al l y c oer ci ve effects o f ad d itio n al p ro d d in g b y t h e c ou rt, d ec lar ed a m ist ria l.N o. 07

- 4013 5 Tayl or ’ s s eco nd tr i alco m m en c ed on J uly9, 20 07. Over tw o days o fev i dence, the gov er nm ent c al l ed a nu m ber of w i tness es, i ncl ud i ng Offi cerS chel l, Captai n Cum m i ngs, Chi ef H ug he s, a nd M ar i o Do wel l

. Nei th erthe g o ve r nm ent no r the defense cal l ed M ary W ea verto te sti fy. Dowe l l ’ s te st i m o ny was p ar ti cul ar l y i ns tr uct i ve o n the case ’s key i ss ue

— w hetherTayl orhad knowingly posse sse d the fi re ar m . Dow el l expl ai ned to the j ury that on Sep te m b er 12 , 200 5, h e h ad b e e n w o r kin g on a c ar in f ro nt o f hi s a pa r t men t whe n Ta y l o r, a n a c qu a i nt a nc e o f Dowe l l ’ s, a ppr o ac he d a nd a sk ed Dowe l l t o “ p ut a g un up f orhi m , ” i
. e. , hi de Tayl or ’ s weap on . D ow el l te sti fi ed th athe b el i ev ed Ta y l o r l at eri nt en ded to r ec o ve r the fi rearm from i ts hid d en l ocat ion. D ow elltold th e j ury that he too k T aylo r ar ound to the bac k o fthe apart
m en t b u ild in g, w h er e T ay lor g av e t h e g u n to D ow ell. K now i ng t h at a nea rbyapar tm ent b el ongi ng to Lari cka Pe r ki ns, a n un i nv o l v e d thi r d p a r t y, wo ul d b e u nl o c k e d, Dow el l to ok the gun and hid i t in Per ki ns’ s a partm ent. On Jul y 1 0, the j ury re turned a v erdicto fgui l ty as charg ed i n count one ofthe i nd i ctm ent. On Decem ber6, 20 07, the di st r i ctc o ur t se nt en ced Tay l o r t o s ev en ty
- ei g ht mon ths ’ i mpr i s o nme nt, f o l l o we d b y a thr e e - y e a r t e r m o f su per vi se d r el ea se . Tay l o r no w appe al s, c i tingc o nc erns r el at ed to b o ththe mis tr i alde cl ar at i o n a nd the admi ss i o n i nt o e vi den ce ofc er ta i n s ta te m en ts dur i ng h is s ec on d tria l.

II. A NA LYSIS On a ppeal, w e di vi de Ta y l o r ’ s ar g um en ts a cc o r di ng t o th e t r i a l t o whi c h th e y p e r t a i n . T a y l o r ’ s i n i t i a l t wo6 N o. 07

- 4013 cl ai m s invol ve the m i str i aldecl ar at ion d uri ng hi s fi rs t tr ial. H i s f i n al c laim rela te s t o t h e a d m iss ion of ce rt ain e v i d e n c e d u r i n gh i s s e c o n d t r i a l

. As we e x p l a i n b e l o w, w e di sag re e with Tayl or ’ s a rgum ents on a l lfro nts.

A. The M i s t r i al ( Tri al N um b e r1) T h e D ou b le Jeop ar d y C lau se of th e U n ite d Sta te s C on st itu tion ba r s a defen dan t’ s r et r i alunl es s th e di st r i ctc o urt d eclared a m istri al ei th er (1) w ith th e d efend an t’s c on se n t, or (2) be c au se th e d ec lar at ion w a s m an ifes tly n ec es sa ry . U nite d State s v. C om bs , 22 2 F
. 3d 3 53, 35 8- 59 (7t h C i r . 2 0 00 ); s e eal s o U. S
. Co ns t. a m en d. V; Ar izona v. Was hi ngt on , 43 4 U.S
. 49 7, 50 4- 05 (1 978) ( disc ussi ng a defe nd ant’ s “ val ued ri ght t o have hi s t ri alco m ple ted by a p ar tic u lar trib u n al” an d st at in g t h at a p ro se c u to r “is en ti tl ed to o ne , a nd o nl y o ne , o ppo r tu ni tyt o r equire an acc used to st and tri al ”)
. Tayl orco ntest s th e d i str i ct c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to d ec lar e t h e m ist ria l w ith ou t h is co ns en t an d wi th o utfi ndi ngmani fes t ne ce ss i tya nd cl ai m s th att r i alc o uns elwas i ne ffecti ve b ec au se the at to rn ey d id n ots ee k T ay lor’ s c on se n t t o t h e m ist ria l. N ei thercl ai m withst ands scr uti ny.

1. TheD i s t r i ctCour t ’s D e cl ar at i on of a M i s t r i al A court m ay decl ar e a m i str i ali fi t dete rm i nes that s uch a d ecl ar ati on i s “ occa si oned by m ani festnece ssi ty. ” C om bs , 222 F. 3d at 358- 59. S uch a deter m i nati on i s pro per w i th o r w ith ou t t h e d efe n d an t ’ s c on se n t, s e ei d. , and need notbe m ad e e x p licit ly, s e eCam de n v . Ci r cu it C o ur tof t heSe co ndN o. 07

- 4013 7 Judici al Circui t, 892 F. 2d 610, 61 4 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)
. A m i str i al i s m ani fest l y nec ess ar y o nl y i fthe “scr up ulo us exer ci se o fj udi ci aldi screti o n l ea ds to the c o nc l us i o n tha t th e en ds o fpub l i c j us ti ce woul d no t b e ser ve d b y a c o nt i nuati on o fthe proce edi ngs. ” Id. ( qu otations om itted ). W e r evi ew a cour t’ s deci si on t o decl ar e a m i str i alf or an ab u se of d i s c re tio n . U nite d State s v. Va is et a , 33 3 F
. 3d 815, 81 8 ( 7th C i r. 20 03)
. Our r evi ew bec om es eve n m o r e defer en ti alin a situa ti o n s ucha s th i s, wher e th e
“ man i fe s tn e c e s s i t y ” p r o mpt i ngthe mi s t r i a l i s a de a dl o c ke d j u ry . Se ei d. ; s e eal s o Was hi ngt on , 4 3 4 U. S
. a t50 9; Wi l l i am s v. Bar t ow , 4 81 F
. 3d 49 2, 50 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7) ( no ting th att h e r e v i e wi n gc o u r ta p p l i e s v a r y i n gd e g r e e s o fs c r utiny wi th i n the abus e- o f

- di sc r et i o n s ta nda r d de pen di ng on the ev ents preci pit ati ng t h e m i str i al )
. S uch defe re nce i s warr anted be cause the t ri alju d ge i s in the best posi ti on t o bal ance the defenda nt’ s inter esti n havi ng a gi ven j ury deci de hi s f ate aga i nst the pu bl i c’ s int erest in fair t ria ls a n d j u st j u d gm en ts
. Va is et a , 33 3 F
. 3d at 818. I n Vais e ta , w e d isc u ss ed se ve ra l fac to rs a c ou rtsh ou ld consi der bef or e decl ar i ng a m i str i al du e to a d eadl ock ed j u ry : (1 ) st ate m ents f ro m the j ury that i t ca nnot a gr ee; (2) le n gt h of th e d elib er at ion s ; (3) len gt h of th e t ria l; ( 4) c o m pl ex i tyo fthe i ss ue s;( 5) the j ur y ’ s co m m uni ca ti o ns to the j ud g e ; a nd ( 6 ) the p o t e nt i a l l y p r ej ud i c i a l i mp act of c on tin u ed forc ed d e l i b er at ion s. Id. H er e, a l th o ug h the cour t nev erexpl i ci tl y s tat ed that i t f ound the m i str ial to be of “m ani fest necess i ty, ” the cour t cl ear l y c onte m pla ted each o fthe V

a is eta fac to rs be for e itd ec lar ed a m ist ria l, a de c i s i o nth a tw e c o n c l u d e w a s w e l l w i th i n th e b o un ds o fthe c o ur t’ s di sc r et i o n.8 N o. 07

- 4013 F i r st, the c o ur t ha d t w o w r i tt ens ta te m en ts fr o m the j ury i nd i cating i ts i nabi l i ty to agr ee, o ne o n Ju n e 2 0, the s eco nd on Ju n e 2 1. S eco nd , the cour t di scusse d both the l ength ofthe prese ntati on ofev i dence and the l ength ofthe del iber ati ons, not i ng tha t the ev i dence had tak en appr o xi m at el y six ho ur s an d tha t th e j ur y de l ibe r at i o ns h a d b e e n o n g o i n g f o r t e n h o u r s . S a i d th e j u d g e : “ J u s ts e e ms l i ke w i th si x hours o fte sti m ony, with o verte n hours , ther eabo uts, o fdel iber ati on, thatwe’r e no t g oi n g t o get a differ ent re sul t. ” Thir d, the j ud ge express ed hi s o pini on th at th e single i ssu e facing the j ury

— w hetherTayl orhad k no wi ng l y po ss es se d the g un

— w as re l ati vel y s i m ple

. N ext, th e j ury’ s co m m unica ti ons m ade cl earthati t had m a d e li ttle progress i n th ree d ays; in fact, the j ury’s spl i t ha d no t ch an g ed sinc e i t be g an del ibe r at i ng. A nd fi na ll y, th e j ud g e e x p lai ne d his fear of coercin g the j ury i nto a deci si o n b y r equi r i ngfur th erde l ibe r at i o ns . The j ud ge d iscus sed each of t he se factors on the record b efo re an n ou n c in g h is d ec isio n to d ec lar e t h e m ist ria l. W e f ai l to se e ho w such a m eas ured deci si on, m ade with am ple i nfo rm ati on a nd fullappreci ati on f orthe Va is et a fac to rs , c ou ld be an ab u se of d isc re tio n . Cf. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 54 6 F
. 3d 465, 47 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( noti ng tha t a j u d g e mu s t e x e r c i s e h i s d i s c r e t i o n, i
. e . , “ c o n s i d e r [ ] t he f a c t o r s rele va n t t o t h at ex er c ise ,” b efo re w e a c c or d h is d ecision d eferenc e). On a ppea l, Ta y l o r e ss en ti al l y a sk s us t o s ubs ti tu te o ur j ud gm ent forthato fthe dist ri ct j ud ge. H e s ugge st s, f or ex am p le, that the iss ue w as no t as sim p le as the cou rt be l i ev ed an d tha t th e l en g tho fde l ibe r at i o ns was no t o ut ofpro port i on t o the l ength ofthe ev i dence. Tayl orar guesN o. 07

- 4013 9

The S i l vern instru ction read s as f ollo w s: 1 The ve rdi c tm us tr epr es en tthe c ons i der ed j udgm en t ofeac h j uror. In or der to return a verd ic t, it i s neces sar y tha te a c h j ur ora gr e e the r e t o. Yo ur ve r di c tm us tbe u na nim ou s. Iti s you r duty, as j urors, to consul t w ith one another an d to d elib era te w ith a view to rea ch ing an ag reem en t, i fyou c an do so withoutvi ol en c e t o i ndi vi dual j udgm en t
. Eac h of you m us t dec i de the c as e f or your s el f, but do s o o nl y a ft erani m par t i al c ons i der ati on ofthe evi denc e with yo ur fel l ow j ur or s . I n the c our s e ofyour de l ib e r a t i ons , d o n o th e s i t a t e t o r e e x a mi n e y o u r o wn v iew s and cha ng e y ou r op inio n if c o n v ince d it i s er ro ne ous . B utd o n ots ur re nderyourho ne s tc onvi c t i on as t o the wei ghtor e ff ec tofe vi denc e s ol el y b eca us e of the opinion ofyour f el low jurors , or f or the m ere p u rp ose o f retu rn ing a v erd ict. Y ou are not parti sans . Y ou are j ud ges

—j udges ofthe f ac t s . Your s ol e i nt er es t i s t o as c er t ai n the truth fro m the evidence i n the cas e. 484 F. 2d at 883. that the c ourtsho uld have o rder ed the j ury to del iber ate “at least unti l l unch” and shoul d have r er ead the Silv ern in st ru c tio n, see U nited Sta tes v. Silv ern , 4 84 F. 2d 879, 88 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 73) , an instr ucti on th at w e h ave hel d to be 1 c on te n t-n eu tr al an d n on -c oe rc ive , U nited Sta tes v. Sa nd ers , 962 F. 2d 660, 676 ( 7th Ci r. 19 92) ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. B eve rly, 91 3 F
. 2d 337, 35 2 ( 7th C ir. 1 990))
. But w hen r ev i ewi ngo nl y f o r a n abus e o fdi sc r et i o n, s ec o nd- g ue ss i ng10 N o. 07

- 4013 th e d ist ric t c ou rtis so m et h in g w e w ill no t d o. SeeAm
. Nat’l Bank & Tr us tC o. of Chi. v. R eg’ l Tr ans p. Aut h. , 12 5 F
. 3d 420, 43 1 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7)
. A di sc r et i o na r y de ci si o n, a s th i s o ne w as , i m p lies a ra n ge of ac c ep ta b le ou t c o m es . See U nited Sta tes v. Ko en , 9 82 F
. 2d 11 01 , 1 11 4 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2)
. S o l o ng as the j ud ge’ s co ncl us ion w as w i thi n that ra nge o fo utcom es, we w i l l deferto h is j ud gm ent, notsubst i tute ou r ow n . Se ei d. ; s e eal s o Unit e d S t ates v
. So uf f r ont, 33 8 F
. 3d 80 9, 8 19 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( st at i ngtha t when r evi ewi ng f oran abuse o fdi scr eti on, thi s co urt w i l l notse cond-guess th e t rialjud ge’s d ecision or rew eigh th e evide nc e). Furth er, ev en if w e w er e t o c on d u c t a m or e s ea rc h in g a n al y sis ofthe cour t’ s co ncl usi ons, we see no f aul t in the deci si on it r each ed

. A s su ch , w e hold that the d istri ct cou rt’s d ecision to d eclare a m istri al du rin g Ta ylor’ s fi rst j ury tr i alwas not an abuse o fdi scr eti on. W e turn now to T a y l o r ’ s i n e ffe c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o fc o u n s e l c l a i m. 2. Ineffectiv e A ssistan ce of Tria l C o un sel Tayl ornext ar gues that he r ecei ved i neffecti ve as sis ta n c e of c ou n se l be c au se h is a tt or n ey d id n otco n su lt Ta y l o r b e f o r e r e c o mm e nd i ngt o the court tha ti ta c c e pt t h e jur y’s d ea d loc ke d p os itio n an d d ec lar e a m ist ria l. The tes t f or i neffecti ve ass i sta nce of counsel i s w ell es tablish ed

. Se eSt r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on , 4 66 U
. S
. 66 8 ( 19 84 )
. To preva i l o n s uch a cl ai m , Tayl orm ust s how bo th ( 1) that hi s t ri alco unsel ’ s per f or m ance w as o bj ecti vel y defi ci ent; and (2 ) thatco unsel ’ s defi ci ency prej ud i ced hi s defense. Id. at 68 7; U nited Sta tes v. Sh uk ri, 207 F.3d 412 , 418 (7th C ir. 2000 ).N o. 07

- 4013 11 A s a pre l i m i narym att er, we note ou rst andard re l uctance to consi der ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel clai m s o n d ire c t a p p ea l. U nit e d S t at e s v. Br ooks , 12 5 F
. 3d 484, 49 5 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ). A s w e h av e s aid : [ S] uch cl ai m s a re veryu nl i kel y to fi nd any f actual su p p ort i n th e tria l r e cord and an ad verse d eterm i n at ion on d ire c t a p p ea l w ill be re s jud ica ta in an y sub se que ntco l l at er alat ta ck

. . . . [ A] defen dan t w ho p r e s e nt s a n i ne ffe c t i v e - a s s i s t a nc e c l a i m f or th e firs t t i m e o n d ire c t a p p ea l ha s litt le t o ga in and ever ythi ng to l ose . U nited St at e s v. Cooke, 1 1 0 F
. 3 d 1 2 8 8 , 1 2 9 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 19 97) (c ita tio n s a n d qu ot at ion s o m itt ed ); s e eal s o Br ooks , 12 5 F. 3d at 495. The u n d evel oped re cor d i n thi s ca se provi des a perfect exam ple o fwh y we ty pic ally decl i ne to co nsi der i neffecti ve ass i sta nce ar gum ents f orthe fi rs t t i m e o n di r ec t appe al

. De spi te Ta y l o r ’ s ar g um en ts to the c o ntr ary, ther e i s no i nd i cati on i n the re cor d w hether Tayl or ’ s t ri alco unsel co nsul ted w ith him befor e s ugg es tingt o the c o ur t th ati t d ec l ar e a m i st r i al

. Due t o the st ro n g p re su m p tio n o fc o u n se l’s e ffec tiv en es s, s e eSt r i ck

l and, 46 6 U.S
. at68 9, i fwe w er e t o express an o pini on o n counsel ’ s per f or m ance b ased o n such an incom ple te r e c o r d , i two u l d h a v e t o b e i n c o u n s e l ’ s f av o r . Butwe need not m ake such a concl usi ve fi nd i ng i n thi s ca se, nor need w e defero ur decis ion o n thi s cl ai m , bec ause Tayl or fails to m ak e t h e re q u isit e s h ow in g of p r eju d ice
. St r i ck

l a nd ’s tw o- part tes t r equi re s b ot h defi ci ent per f or m ance and p rej u d ice , 466 U .S. at 6 87 ; req u irin g a m o re fu lly12 N o. 07

- 4013 devel oped re cor d, ther ef or e, would onlyd el ay the inevi tabl e. C ou rt s m ay deny i neffecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel cl ai m s f o r l ac ko fpr ej ud i ce wi th o ute ve r c o ns i der i ngthe q u es tio n of cou n se l’s a c tu al p er for m an c e. Id. at69 7; s e e, e . g. , B erkey v. U nited Sta tes , 318 F.3d 768 , 772 (7th C ir. 2003); M at he ney v . Ande rs on , 2 53 F
. 3d 10 25 , 1 04 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. To d em on st ra te p rej u d ice , Ta ylo r m u st sh ow “t h at th e d ec isi on re ac he d woul d r ea so nabl y l i k el y ha ve b ee n di ffer en t abse nt th e e rrors. ” St r i ck l and, 466 U
. S. at 696. Taylor’s en tire argum en t, how ever, hinges on his tri al coun sel’s pur po r te d de fi ci en ci es ; he make s no c la i m s r el at ed to the pr ej udi ce he s uffered. W e pr es um e th i s i s be ca us e he suffer ed non e. A s we have al re ady di scusse d, the di str i ct cour t, aftercar eful consi de rati on o fthe Va is et a f acto rs an d o ve r th e o b j ec tio n of th e p ro se c u tio n, i m p licit ly foun d a m istri al to be of m an ifest n eces sity. Th e cou rt di d no t ne ed Ta y l o r ’ s per m issi o n t o make tha t dec i si o n, and ther e i s no r eas on t o bel i ev e th at an o bj ecti on by d efe n se co u n se l, or ev en by th e d efe n d an t h im se lf, w ou ld have changed the cour t’ s co ncl usi on. A bsent the r equi si te show i ng o fprej ud i ce, Tayl or ’ s ineffecti ve ass i sta nce o f co uns elc l ai m f ai l s. W e tur n n o w to Ta y l o r ’ s fi na l a r g um ent.

B. Adm i s s i b ility of

M ary W

e ave r ’s St at e m e nt( Tri al N um b e r2) F i na l l y, Tay l o r cl ai m s tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed dur i ng th e secon d tri al by adm itti ng i nt o eviden ce M ary W eave r’ s s tat em ent t o Offi cerS chel l that“he j ust t oo k aN o. 07

- 4013 13 gun acr oss the str eet
. ” Tay l orbas es thi s a rgum ent o n tw o gr ounds. Fi rs t, he a sse rt s that the ev i denti ar y r ule s agains t hea rsay p rohibited the ad m issi on of W eave r’s st at em en t. See Fed. R. Evi d. 801-802 . Seco nd , he a rgues th ata dm i tt i ng W ea ve r ’ s st at ementwi th o utc al l i ng W ea ver he r se l ft o t es ti fy v i o l at ed hi s co ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht to co n fro n t w itn es se s a ga in st h im
. See U
. S. Const. am end. VI
. W e fi nd bo th ar gum ents unavai l i ng. W e t y p ica lly re vie w a d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isio n to ad m it st at em en ts int o e vid en c e fo r an ab u se of d isc re tio n . U nited St at e s v. Aki nr i nade, 6 1 F .3d 1279, 1283 (7th C ir. 1995). Du ri ng tr i al, however, defense counselr ai sed no obj ecti o ns t o the r efer en ce s to W ea ve r ’ s st at ement, l i m i ting ou r re vie w to p lain err or . S e eUn i t e d S t a t e s v . Ol ano , 5 07 U .S. 72 5, 73 1 (1 99 3); s e eal s o Fe d. R. Cri m . P. 52 ( b)

. U nd er thi s sta n d ar d , we w i l l notr eve rs e unl ess we fi nd not onl y a n er ro r, but an er ro r “t h at is ‘ pla i n’ and that

‘ affect[ s] subst anti alr i ghts. ’ ” O l ano , 507 U
. S. at 732 (alteratio n i n o rigi na l)

. Ev en i n th e pre sen ce of a plain error, the deci si on wh etherto co rr ect the e rr orl i es i n ourdi scre ti on, wh i ch the Suprem e Cour t has i nstr ucted us not to e xe r ci se “ unl es s th e er r o r ‘ se r i o us l y a ffect[ s] the f ai rnes s, i ntegr i ty orpubli c r eputation o f j ud i ci alpro c ee dings

. ’ ” Id. ( al ter ati on i n or i gi nal ) ( quoti ng U ni ted St at e s v. Young, 470 U
. S. 1, 15 (1985)). W e tu r n fi r stt o Ta y l o r ’ s hear sa y a r g um en ts
. The Feder alRule s o fEvi dence prohib i t the adm i ssi on o f hear say : o ut- of

- cour t s tat em ents m ade by non- w i tness es tha ta r e o ffe r e d t o prove the t r uth o fthe ma t t e r a s s e r t e d. See Fe d . R. E vid . 801 -80 2; U ni t ed St at e s v. Br e l and, 35 614 N o. 07

- 4013 F. 3d 787, 79 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04 ). H er e, Tayl orchal l enges num er ous r efer ences m ade by Offi cer Schel l and other s t o M ar y W eave r’s s ta tem ent that “ he j ust t oo k a gun ac ro ss the s tr eet
. ” S uch tes ti m ony creat ed a potenti alhear say p ro b l em bec ause nei thersi de cal l ed W eave r to tes ti fy, relyi ng i ns tead on oth e r p e o p le to recou nt to the j ury W eave r’s statem en t s. W e find that the d istri ct cou rt co m m i tt ed no e r r o r b ec au se the c ha l l en g ed st at ement did notsa ti sfy the defi ni ti on o fhear say . W e hav e r eco gnized repeat edl y that s tat em ents offer ed to “es tabl i sh the co urse o fthe i nvest i gat i on, ” rather than to prove the tr uth ofthe m atter a sse rt ed, ar e no nhears ay an d t h e r efo re ad m iss ible

. Akin r i nade, 61 F. 3d at 1283 ; s e eal s o, e . g. , Br e l and, 35 6 F
. 3d at 792; U nited St at e s v. Li nwood, 142 F.3d 418 , 4 25 (7th C ir. 1998); U ni t e d S t at e s v. S a nc hez , 32 F .3d 10 02 , 100 5 (7 th C ir. 19 94 ). But s e e U nited St at es v . S i l va , 38 0 F
. 3d 1018 , 10 20 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( disc ussi ng, i n the conte xt o fco nv er sa ti ons between DE A ag ents an d the i r c o nfi de nt i a l i nfo r man t s , tha t“ [ a ] l l o wi nga g e nt s to narr ate t h e co urse o fthei r i nvest i gat i ons . . . would go f arto w ar d abro gat in g the defendant’s r i ghts und er th e sixth am en d m en t and the h earsay rule”). H er e, the re fer ences to M ary W ea ver ’ s s tat em ent b y Sc h ell, C u m m in gs , an d H u gh es w er e offe re d to ex p lain thei r own ac tio n s in the cour se ofthei r i nvest i gat i on

— f or exam ple , wh y they l oo ked ac ro ss the s tr eet, wh y they que st ioned M ar i o Dow el l, and w hy the y handcuffed Tayl orwh en he approached. I nd eed, W eave r’ s s tat em ent was the j um ping- offpoi nt forthe enti re i nvest i gati o n. Ourc o nc l us i o n mi g htb e differ en t i f, a s i n Si l va , theN o. 07

- 4013 15 pol i ce were te sti fyi ng to s tat em ents harv est ed fro m an o n go in g re lat ion sh ip w ith an info rm an t, see 3 8 0 F
. 3d at 10 19 , b uttho se a re no t th e f ac ts o fthi s ca se ; he r e, the p olic e w er e re sp on d in g t o a d ev elo p in g, p ot en tia lly d an gerou s situation
. T h e govern m en t offered W eave r’s sta tem ent in the conte xt o f the offi cer s’ te sti m ony to ex pl ain the c o ur se o fl aw e nf o r ce m en t’ s i nv esti gat i o n, no t as e vi den ce tha t Ta y l o r po ss esse d the g un. The dist ri ct c ourt, with no o bj ecti ons m ade by ei therparty, proper l y a dm i tte d the t est i m ony as nonhear say . Turning, fi nal l y, to T ayl or ’ s Confro ntati on Cl ause ar gu m en t, w e a g a i n find n o p lain err or . A b se n t “ c om p licating ci rcum sta nces, ” s uch as a pro secuto r w ho e xploi ts n on h ea rs ay st at em en ts for t h e i r tru th , no n h ea rs ay te st imo n y d o e s n o tp r e s e n ta C o nfr o n t a t i o n C l a u s e p r o b l e m. Lee v. M cC a ug htry , 892 F.2d 131 8, 1325 ( 7th Cir. 1990); see a lso M a rtinez v. M cC a ug htry , 951 F.2d 13 0, 133 (7th Cir. 1991 ) ( ci ti ng Ten ne s s e ev. Street, 4 71 U
. S. 409, 414 (1985 ))
. W e are satisfi ed that there w e r e n o “com p li catin g circ u m st an c es ” h er e; th u s, b ec au se th e t es tim on y b y Sc h ell, Cu m m i ngs, and H ughes was nonhear say, noth in g r an afo u l of th e C on fro n t a t i on C lau se . See M a rtinez , 95 1 F
. 2d at1 33

- 34
. Further m o r e, g i ve n the o th ere vi den ce i n the re c or d of T ay lor’ s g u n p os se ss ion , na m ely , M ar io Dow el l ’ s tes ti m ony, Tayl or cannot cl ai m that hi s “ subst an tia l righ ts ” w er e a ffec te d

. Se eO l ano , 50 7 U.S
. at73 4 ( sta ti ng tha t in m ostcas es an er ror affects s ubstanti al r i g h t s o n l y i fw a s p r ej u d i c i a l, i
. e . , i ta ffe c t e d th e o u t c o me of t h e p ro c ee d i n g s ); Akin r i nade, 6 1 F
. 3d at1 28 3 ( no ting th e ab se nc e o fa “ m i sc ar r i ag e o f j usti ce ” when r ev i ewi ng a C onfron tation C lause claim f or plain error).16 N o. 07

- 4013 III. C ON CLU SI ON F o rthefo r ego i ng r eas ons, we A F F I R M T aylor’s con vi cti o n.

6- 26- 09