2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
5-8-2007 

# U SA v . Robinson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5330

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . Ro b in s on" (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1038. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1038P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 05- 5330

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. S HAWN RO BI NS ON, A p p e llan t.

___________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 04- cr - 00421 D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . Je ro m e B . S im a n d le

____________________ Subm i t t ed underT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

February27, 20072 B efor e: M cK E E and A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges , and

R E ST A N I , * J udge ( Fi l ed: M ar ch 5, 2007)
C h ri stop h er J. C h ri sti e, E sq u ir e U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney G eo rge S
. L eo n e, E sq u ir e C hi ef, A ppeal s D i vi s i on C aro li n e A
. S ad low sk i, E sq ir e A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney 970 B r oad St r eet N ew ark, N ew J er s ey07102

C ouns el forA ppel l ee Jo h n F
. R en n er, E sq u ir e Pavi l i ons atG r eentr ee, Sui t e 401 12000 L i ncol n D r i ve M ar l t on, N ew J er s ey08053 C ouns el forA ppel l ant

_________________ * T he H onor abl e J ane A
. R es t ani , C hi ef Judge , U
. S. C our tof I nt ernat i onal T r ade, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.3 OP I NI ON
A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge. O n M ay4, 2005, Shaw n R obi ns on pl eade d gui l t yt o 10 count s of coc ai ne pos s es s i on w i t h t he i nt entt o di s t r i but e. See 21 U
. S. C
. § 841( a) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( C )
. T he D i s t r i ctC our tforthe D i stri ctof N ew Jer seysent enced R ob i nson t o 1 50 m on t hs’ i m pr i s onm entand thr ee y ear s ’ s upervi s ed r el eas e. R obi ns on now appea l s hi s puni s hm ent . H e cont ends thatthe us e of h e a rsa ye v id e n c e a t h is s e n ten c in g h e a rin g v io late d h is S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o confr onthi s acc us er s . W e conc l ude that A p p e llan t’s a rg u m e n t lac k s m e rit an d , ac c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. I. D ur i ng a 10- m ont h pol i ce i nves t i gat i on i n Penns G ro v e , N e w Je rse y , R o b in so n so ld u n d e rc o v e r in f o rm a n ts appr oxi m at el y167 gr ams of coc ai ne and 62 gr ams of cr ack coca i ne. R obi ns on w as s ubs equent l yarr es t ed and c har ged w i t h a tw el ve- counti ndi ctm ent . I n M ayof 2005, he s i gned a pl ea a gr eement ; t he governm entdr opped tw o char ges of cr ack c o c a in e p o ss e ss io n a n d R o b in so n p lea d e d g u iltyto 1 0 c o u n ts o f c o c a in e p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te .4 A tt he s ent enci ng hear i ng, t o t he s urpr i s e of the pr os ecut or , R obi ns on cl ai m ed thathe w as s etup bythe governm ent . H e i ns i s t ed thathe onl ys ol d drugs t o t he u n d erc o v er inf

o rm an t, an d o n lyas a resu lto f th e inf o rm an t’ s pr oddi ng. T o r ebutt hi s cont ent i on, Ser geantB r i an Face m y er of the Sal em C ount yN ar cot i cs T as k For ce pr es ent ed hea r s ay t es t i m onyt hatR obi ns on s ol d drugs t o atl eas ts even di ffe r ent buy er s . Facemy erexpl ai ned thats even of R obi ns on’ s r egul ar cus t om er s pr ovi ded t aped, s w orn s t at ement s admi t t i ng they h a d p u rc h a se d c o c a in e f ro m R o b in so n . B a se d o n th e ir admi s s i ons , s i x of the buy er s then pl eade d gui l t yt o drugre la te d o f

f e n s e s . C oncerned abouthi s cr edi bi l i t y , R obi ns on chal l enged t he i nt r oduct i on of Face m y er ’ s hear s ayt es t i m ony . A ppel l ant ar gued thatundert he Si xth A m endment ’ s C onfr ont at i on C lau se h e h a d th e rig h t to c ro ss -e x a m in e th e se v e n in d iv id u a ls w ho acc us ed hi m of dea l i ng coca i ne. T he C onfr ont at i on C l aus e guar ant ees t hat“[i ] n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , the acc us ed s hal l enj oyt he r i ght
. . . t o be conf r ont ed w i t h t he w itn esse s ag ains t him
. ” U
. S
. C o n st. am en d
. V I. T o su p p o rt hi s pos i t i on, R obi ns on ci t ed C r aw for d v. W as hi ngt on, 541 U .S . 3 6 (2 0 0 4 ), a S u p re m e C o u rt c a se th a t ex a m in e s th e S ix th A m endmentr i ghtt o confr ontacc us er s attr i al
. T he D i s t r i ct C our tr ej ect ed A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum entand cons i der ed Facemy er ’ s t es t i m onyi n fas hi oni ng R obi ns on’ s s ent ence . R ob i nson no w app eal s.5 II. T h is case ask s u s to d ec ide if th e S ixth A m en d m en t’ s C onfr ont at i on C l aus e pr event s the governm entfr om i nt r oduci ng hear s ayevi dence dur i ng s ent enci ng hear i ngs . Put ano t her w ay : do cri m i nal defend ants hav e t he ri gh tt o crosse x a mi n e o u t - o f

- c o u r twi t n e s s e s d u r i n g th e s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e ? T h e law o n this i ssu e is w ell sett led. B o th the S u p rem e C o u rt and thi s C our tof A ppeal s have de t erm i ned thatthe C onfr ont at i on C l aus e does notappl yi n t he s ent enci ng cont ext and does notpr eventt he i ntr oduct i on of hea r s ayt es t i m onyat a s e nt e nc i ng he a r i ng . Se e W i l l i a ms v . O kl a ho ma, 35 8 U. S. 576, 584 ( 1959) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K i kum ur a, 918 F. 2d 1084, 1099- 1100 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( hol di ng thatthe C onfr ont at i on C la u s e o n ly ap p lie s a t tr ia l, n o t s e n te n c in g ). R obi ns on m akes a val i antat t empt t o out fl ank the cl ear p rec ed en t of

this C o u rt . H e a rgu es th at th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’s r e c e n td e c i s i o n i n Cr a wf o r d v . Wa s h i n g t o n ma n d a t e s th a twe r eeva l uat e how t he Si xth A m endmentappl i es t o s ent enci ng. W e di s agr ee. I n C r aw for d, the Supr eme C our thel d t hati n a c rim in a l tria l th e C o n f

ro n tatio n C lau se p ro h ib its con si derat i on of o ut- of-cou rtt est i m on i al st at em ents , un l ess t he w i t nes s i s unavai l abl e and the def endanthas had a pr evi ous oppor tuni t yt o conductcr os s - exami nat i on. See 541 U .S . at 6 8 . C ra w f

o rd , h o w e v e r, n e v e r a p p lies its ru le to s ent enci ng; now her e does the dec i s i on r efe rt o s ent enci ng h e a rin g s. C ra w f

o rd , the re f

o re , p ro v id e s n o p latf

o rm to r ever s e pr i orSupr eme C our tdeci s i ons thatexpr es s l yal l ow t he i nt r oduct i on of hea r s ayevi dence i n t he s ent enci ngW e al s o not e thatnone of ours i s t erC our t s of A ppeal s have 1 i nt erpr et ed C r aw fo r d t o appl yt o s ent enci ng hear i ngs . See U n it ed S tat es v . C h au , 4 2 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 8 , 1 3 2 3 (11 th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); U n it ed S tat es v . L u cian o , 4 1 4 F
. 3 d 1 7 4 , 1 7 9 (1st C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); U n it ed S tate s v . R o ch e, 41 5 F
. 3 d 6 1 4 , 6 1 8 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ); U n it ed S tat es v . M arti n ez , 4 1 3 F
. 3 d 2 3 9 , 2 4 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ).
6 c o n tex t. 1 P ro se c u to rs, o f

c o u rse , m a yn o t in tro d u c e a n ya n d a ll hear s ayt es t i m onyata s ent enci ng pr ocee di ng. T he admi s s i on o f h e a rsa ysta tem e n ts in th e se n ten c in g c o n tex t is su b jec t to t he r equi r ement s of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. U nderthe p r e c e d e n to f

t h i s Co u r t , h e a r s a ys t a t e me n t s mu s th a v e s o me “mi ni m al i ndi ci um of r el i abi l i t ybey ond m er e al l egat i on. ” K i ku m ura, 91 8 F
. 2d at11 02 (ci t at i on s om i t t ed); see al so U
. S. S. G
. § 6A 1. 3( a) ( cour t s m aycons i deranyevi dence at s ent enci ng “pr ovi ded thatthe i nform at i on has s uffi ci ent i ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t yt o s uppor ti t s pr obabl e ac cur acy ”)
. T he evi dence offe r ed byt he G overnm entthr ough t he t es t i m onyof S erg ea n t Fa ce m y er e asil yp asse s this t est. T h e D istri ct C o u rt not ed thatFacemy er ’ s t es t i m onyw as s uppor t ed byaudi ot apes o f R o b inso n tal k ing w ith h is bu y ers a n d tape d sw o rn s t at ement s of thos e buy er s admi t t i ng theypur chas ed coc ai ne fr om R obi ns on on m ul t i pl e occ as i ons . C ons i der i ng the f o o tp rin t lef

t b yth is e v id e n c e , the D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to a l l o w th e h e a r s a yt e s t i mo n ywa s wa r r a n t e d
. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we a f f ir m th e s e n te n c e im p o s e d b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt .7 * * * * * * Fort he r eas ons det ai l ed above , w e w i l l aff i r m the ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.