## 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. 08

- 1307 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D E M A R CO I RB Y, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 06- 10095

—Mi ch ael M . M ihm, Judg e.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 3, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 11, 2009

B ef or e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd M A NI ON a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. DeM ar co I rbywas i nd i cted f orposs ess i ng with i ntent to dist ribute m or e than fi ve gr am s of cra ck i n vi ol ati on of 21 U

. S. C. § 841( a) ( 1). A fter a t w o- day tr i al, a j ury f ound I rbygui l ty ofthatoffense. Irby a pp eal s hi s co nvi cti on, chal l engi ng the suffi ci ency of the evid en ce a nd the ad m issi on of several out-of-court state m e n t s m ad e by a con fi d en tial inform an t (“CI”). We a f fi r m.2 N o. 08

- 1307

J us tpr i or t o this t es t i m ony, defen s e c ouns el obj ec t ed t o the 1 gov ernm ent’ s le ading of the w itness . The gov ernm ent then gave Bat t er ham anope n- en ded i nvi t at i on t o de s c ribe t he c i r c ums t a nc e s s ur r ou nd i ng h i s s ur ve i l l a nc e of 8 0 5 Ea s tRe pu blic. I n h is first senten ce in re sp on se, B atter ha m testified tha t a CI had i nf orm ed him thata pers on nam ed D eM arco was selling coca ine from tha t ad d ress. T he C I w as no t called to testify at trial. 2 I. I n i ts o pen i ngs tatem en t, the g o ve r nm en t to l d the j ur y tha t th e ev i den ce woul d s ho w tha t ano f fi ce r o fthe Peor i a, I l l i noi s Po l i ce Depar tm ent “ re cei ved ev i dence” that I rbywas tr affi cki ng drugs fro m 80 5 EastRepubli c A venue. The go ver nm ent then cal l ed Offi cerChad Batte rham to tes ti fy i n i ts case i n chi ef

. Batte rh am s ta ted that he r ecei ved info rm at i on fro m a CI that a per son nam ed DeM ar co w as sel l i ng co cai ne fro m the house at 80 5 Eas t Re publ ic
. The CIthe n made a c o nt r o l l ed buy 1 ofa ro ck of cra ck coca i ne f ro m som eone at that re si dence; Batter ham sa i d th at t he CI i denti fi ed the sel l eras “DeM ar co. ” Batt er ham al so tes tifi ed that the CIl ate r i den ti fi ed th e def en d ant f r o m a pho to l i ne up a s th e perso n f ro m w hom he had b ought the cra ck. I rby d id not obj ect to B atterh am ’s recou nt ing of an y of th e C I ’s out-of- 2 cour t s tat em ents. Of fi ce r Ba tterh am th ent es ti fi ed th athe s ur ve i l l ed th e 80 5 Eas t Re publ i c r es i den ce a nd o bs er ve d the de f en dan t emer g e f r o m the ho us e, fee d a dog, a nd r ee nt erthe ho us e. Af te r o bt ai ni nga s ea r chwar r an t f o r I rby a nd theN o. 08

- 1307 3 ho us e, Ba tt erha m r etur ne d to h i s su r ve i l l an ce po sta nd wat ch e d I rb y l e a v e t h e f r o n t p o r c h a n d g o i n s i d e th e h ou se . A few m in u te s la te r, a c ar d ri v e n b y N at ale Sar aceno park ed i n f ro nt o fthe re si dence. Batte rham st at ed th athe s aw I rby e m er g e f r o m th e ho us e, wal kt o the p as se n ge r’s sid e o f th e c a r , a n d lea n in t h e w in d ow . A r ai d tea m s wa r med the a r e a a nd t o o kI rb y i nt o c us t o dy nearthe car . One ofthe ar re st i ng o f fi cer s t est i fi ed that he s a w I rb y t a k e a b a g o f ma r ij u a n a o u t o f h i s p o ck eta nd dr o p i to n th e g r o u n d j u s tb e f o r e h e wa s a r r e s t e d

. The quanti ty ofm ar ij uana i n the bag w as w or th abo ut te n d o l l a r s . A t e n - d o l l a r b i l l wa s f o u n d b e t we e n th e p a s s en ger’s seat an d door of the car. Dur i ngthe e xe cut i o n o fthe s ea r chwar r an t f o r the re si dence, pol i ce offi cer s disc ove re d three survei l l ance c a me r a s a r o u n d th e fr o n te n t r a n c e o fth e h o u s e ; t wo m o ni to r s wi thl i ve fee ds f r o m the se c amer as w ere l o ca te d i n the mast erb ed ro o m . A sc an ne r s ett o the Pe o r i a Po li ce D epa r tment ’ s f r eque nc y was f o und i n the sa m e ro om . Th e p olic e fo u n d a m et al p an ofl o o se m ar ij uana on th e bed i n the m ast erbedr oo m , al ong w i th se ve ra l sa n d w ich ba gs co n ta in in g m ar ij u an a. A p las tic gr o c e r y b a go n t he b e d c o nt a i ne d thr e e di g i t a l s c a l es, seve ra l bag s o fm ar ij uana, and another bag hol ding a coupl e o fbag s o fm ar ij uana and fi fty- ni ne bag gi es of c ra c k. T h e t ot al w eig h t o f th e c ra c k w as 16 .9 gr am s. A dr ug - tr affi ck i nge xpe r t te st i fi ed th atthe qua nt i tya nd packag i ng o fthe cra ck w as consi ste nt with an i ntent to di st r ib ut e. Po l i ce f o und a no th erdi g i ta l s ca l e ne arthe he a d o fthe b e d. I rb y ’ s s t a t e i de nt i fi c a t i o n c a r d was f ound o n a dress er i n the m ast er bedro om and h is s ocia l4 N o. 08

- 1307

secu rity card w as foun d i n a locked b o x i n the be d room ’s cl ose t. On a s hel fi n the sam e r oo m , pol i ce disc ov ered seve ra l ar ti c les o fm ai l address ed to I rbyat80 5 East Repu bl i c. I rbydi d not m ove f ora j ud gm ent o facqui tta l under Feder alRule o fCri m i nal Pro cedure 29( a) wh en the go ver n m en t r es te d its ca se or a t t h e c los e o f all of th e e vid en c e. T h e jur y re tu r n ed a ve rd ict of gu ilty , sp ec ifica lly fi nd i ng tha t I rbyposs ess ed w i th i ntent to dis tr ibute 16. 9 g ra m s o fc ra ck. I rbydi d not m ove f ora j ud gm ent o f acqui tta l u n d er R ule 29 ( c) afterthe ver dictwas re turned. The di str i ct c ourtse ntenced hi m to 13 2 m onths’ i m pr i so nm en t. I rby a ppea l s hi s co nv i ct i o n.

II. A

. S uffi ci ency ofthe Evidence I rby a r g ue s t ha t t he e v i de nc e pr e s e nt e d a t t r i a l was i nsuffi ci ent t o susta i n hi s convi cti on o n the charg ed offen se. W he n presen ted w ith a ch all en ge to th e suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence, w e typi cal l y “ w i l l r eve rs e a co nv i ct i o n o nl y when no r at i o na l t r i ero ff ac t, v i ewi ngthe ev i den ce i n the l i g htmos t favo r ab l e to the pr o se cut i o n, c o u l d h a v e f o u n d t h e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o ft he c r i me beyon d a re aso nabl e doubt. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Knox , 54 0 F.3 d 70 8, 71 9 (7 th C ir. 2 00 8). W h ile th is s ta n d ar d is “h igh ly defe re nti al ” a nd “nea rl y i nsurm ountabl e, ” id. , wh er e, as here , the defe nd ant di d not m ove f ora j ud gm ent o f ac qui tt ali n the di stric t co ur t, the e ve n mor e st r i ng en t p lain -er ro r st an d ar d ap p lies , U nite d S t a tes v. B eav er, 51 5N o. 08

- 1307 5 F

. 3d 73 0, 741 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)

. In orde r t o pr ev ai l, the defe nd ant m ust dem onst ra te that a m ani f estm i sc arri age of jus tic e w ill occ u r if his co n vic tio n is n ot rev er se d

. Id. Puta no th erway, “ ‘ r ev er sa l i s war r an te d o nl y i fthe r ec o r d i s dev o i d o fe vi den ce po i nt i ngt o g ui l t, o r i fthe evi dence on a k ey e lem ent was so te nuous thata convi cti on would be sho ckin g.’ ” U nited Sta tes v. Va n A llen , 52 4 F

. 3 d 8 1 4 , 8 1 9 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( qu o t i ng B e a v er, 51 5 F.3d at 741 -42). I n o r d er to c o nv i ctI rby unde r 2 1 U. S

. C. § 8 41 ( a) ( 1) , the go ve rn m en t w as req u ir e d t o p ro ve th at h e (1 ) kn ow in gly o r i nt en ti o na ll y po ss es se d c r ac kc o ca i ne ( 2) wi ththe i nt en t to di st r ibut e i t ( 3) whi l e k no w ing i t was a c o ntr ol l ed substa nce. U nite d State s v. C am pbel l , 53 4 F

. 3d 59 9, 6 0 5 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 8 )

. T h e g o v e r n me n tc a n p r o v e the fi rs t e l em ent b y dem onst ra ting tha t the poss ess i on was eit h er a c t u al or co n st ru c tiv e. Id. The defe nd ant i s co rr ect w hen he say s that he w as never f ound i n actual poss ess i on of t h e c ra c k. T h at le a v es co n st ru c tiv e p os se ss ion , i n w hich case th e govern m en t m us t prov e Irb y had ow ne rshi p, dom i ni on, o r contr olo verthe cra ck, thus e stablish in g a n ex u s b et w ee n h im an d th e d ru gs . U nited Sta tes v. P a rra , 4 0 2 F

. 3 d 7 5 2 , 7 6 1

- 6 2 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 5 )

. “ Me r e p r o x i mity to th e d ru g, m er e p re se n c e o n t h e p r op er ty w h er e it i s l o c a t e d , o r me r e a s s o c i a t i o n, wi t h o u tmo r e , wi t h the perso n w ho does co ntro l the d ru g orpro pertyo n w hi ch i t i s f ound, i s ins uffi ci ent t o supp or t a fi nd i ng o fposs essi on. ” U nited St at e s v. D i N ovo , 52 3 F

. 2d 197, 20 1 ( 7th C ir. 1 975) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks an d citation om itted ). B efo re th e ra id , B at te rh am ob se rv ed th e d efe n d an t e x it and ree nterthe house afterfeedi n g a dog, wh i ch sug-6 N o. 08

- 1307

I r by a s s e r t s tha tthe un r e b u t t e d t e s t i m on y ofTa m e ka Edwa r ds 3 and J onathan Tho m as thatthe m arij uana and crack w ere thei rs (respec t i vel y) c as t s doubton hi s pos s es s i on ofthe c ra c k. The j ur y h e a r d t h i s t e s t i mon y a n d o b v i o u s l y r ej e c t e d i t ; on a s uffi c i e nc y- of

- t he

- e vi de nc e c ha l l e ng e , we wi l l n ots e c on dg u es s th e ju ry ’s cr ed ib ili ty d e t e rm in a tio n s. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Brandt, 54 6 F .3d 91 2 , 91 7(7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ). geste d he w as occ up ying th e h ou se. T he pres en ce of I rby’s s t at e id en tific at ion ca rd , soc ial se c u rit y c ar d , an d m ail add re sse d to hi m i n the m aster bedro om dem onst ra ted th athe was l i vi ngi n the r o o m where th e m ar ij ua na a nd crac k wer e f o und. Tr i alt es ti m o ny e st ab l i sh ed th atthe d efend a n t cam e from the h ou se, w alked to Saracen o’s car, a nd a tt empte d t o s el l mar ij ua na , thus s uppo r ting th e i nfer en ce tha t he was de al i ngmar ij ua na from the ho us e. A j ur y r ea so nabl y c o ul d ha ve i nfer r ed th atthe m ar ij ua na the de f en d an t to o kt o the c arc ame fr o m the m aster be d room w he re the cra ck an d m arij ua na w ere f o und a nd whi chhe was o cc upy i ng . The f ac t th atthe bags o fm ar ij uana and the l oo se m ar ij uana on the b ed i n the m ast erbedr oo m w er e m i ngl ed w i th the bag gi es of c ra c k s u p p or ts an i n f er en c e t h at th e c ra c k a n d m ar ij ua na wer e o wn ed orc o nt r o l l ed by the s ame pe r so n. Thi s evi d en ce was s ubs ta nt i ale no ug h t o s ho w a n ex us between I rbyand the cra ck. 3 Re g ar di ngthe int en t to di st r ibut e el ement, a g o ve r nm e n t w itn es s t es tifie d th at th e q u an tit y of c ra c k (1 6.9 gr am s) wa s in consi ste nt with perso nal use and that i ts packag i ng i n fi fty- ni ne bag gi es w as consi ste nt with an i ntent to dist ribute. Th e fou r scal es f ound in the m ast erN o. 08

- 1307 7 bedro om al so sugge st th at the cra ck had been pre pared f orsa l e r atherthan perso nal co nsum pti on. Thi s e vi d en ce w as suf fi ci en t t o show that I rbyi ntended to dist ribute the c ra ck. I rby does not conte nd that evi dence w as l acki n g on th e th i r d e l ement

— k no wl edg e th at th e cr ac kwas a c o ntr o l l ed su bs ta nc e. Ev enha d he made th is arg um en t, the surve i l l ance c am er as ar ound the fro nt ent ra nce, the l i vef eed m oni tor s, and the scannerset to the p ol i ce fre quency su g g e s t t h a t I rb y wi s h e d t o a v o i d d e t e c t i o n b y l aw e nf or cem ent and w er e s uffi ci ent t o perm i t a n i nfe re nce that he kne w that the cra ck w as a co ntro l l ed substa nce. C f. U nit e d S t at e s v. M e ndoz a , 5 10 F

. 3d 74 9, 7 52

- 53 ( 7th Ci r. 200 7 ) ( t he f a c t t ha t a de f e nd a nt r e qu i r e d a b uy e r t o go thro ugh cer tai n proc edures befor e g i vin g hi m drugs sugge ste d he w as t ry i ng to avo i d draw i ng the at tenti on ofthe author i ti es and al l owed a re aso nabl e j ury to i nfe r the defendant knew he w as d ist ributi ng a contr ol l ed su bsta nc e). For thes e reason s, w e easily con c lu d e tha t the record i s no t de vo i d o fe vi den ce o fI rby ’ s g ui l t an d tha t th e evi dence on each e l em ent o fthe cha rg ed o f f ense w as not so s l i g httha th i s c o nv i c t i o n i s s ho c k i ng . Ac c o r di ng l y, hi s chal l enge to the s uffi ci ency ofthe evi dence f ai l s.

B. A dm i ssi on o fthe CI’ s S tat em ents 1. C o nfro nta tio n C la use T he de fend an t argu es th at th e ad m issi o n o f th e C I ’s st at ement s ( co nc erni ngthe iden ti tyo fthe pe r so n s el l i ng8 N o. 08

- 1307

c ra c k fro m 80 5 E as t R ep u b lic) t h ro u g h B at te rh am ’s t es tim ony v i o l at ed hi s S i xth Am en dm en t r i g htt o c o nfr o nt w i tness es again st h i m . A s we note d ear l i er, I rbydi d not obj ect to the i ntro du cti on o fthe sta tem ents. The i ni ti al questi on i s whether thi s i s pro perl y c hara cter i zed as a w a iv e r or a forfeiture. “W he reas forfeiture is the fail ure to make the t i m el y a ss er ti o n o fa r i g ht, waiver is the

‘ i n t e n t i o n a l r e l i n q u i s h me n to r ab a n d o n me n to fa k n o wn rig h t.’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. O l ano , 50 7 U.S

. 7 25 , 733 ( 1993 ) ( quoti ng Jo hn son v. Z erbst, 3 04 U. S

. 4 58, 4 64 ( 19 38 ) )

. Pl ai nerror revi ew un d er Fed eral Ru le ofCrim inal P roced ure 52 (b ) allow s u s t o c or re c t e rro rs w h ich w e re forfe ite d in th e d ist ric t c ou rt
. Id. at73 1. H owever, i f a r i ght was w ai ved, ther e was no er ro r and thus eve n pla i n-e rr or re vie w is u n av aila b le. U ni t e d S t a tes v . Bab ul , 47 6 F

. 3d 498, 50 0 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). Th e r ec or d sh ow s t h at Irby sim p ly fai led to make a t i m el y a ss er ti o n o fhi s r i g ht ; he sai d nothi ng t o i nd i cate i ntenti onalr el i nquishm ent o r aba nd onm e nt
. Th is m ean s tha t the re w as on ly a forf e i t u r e , a n d we c a n p r o c e e d wi t h p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w. The pla i n-errorst andard com pri ses thr ee re quir em ents an d o n e d isc re tio n ar y c om p on en t. U nited Sta tes v. Sa w yer, 521 F.3d 792, 79 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)

. The defendant m ust show there was 1) an e rr or2) that w as p lain 3) that affe c te d h is s u b st an tia l righ ts
. Ol a no , 507 U .S. at 7 32 . I f th es e th r ee co ndi ti o ns ar e m et, we m ay ex er ci se our d isc re tio n to rec tify th e e rro r b u t o n l y i fit “s er iou sly af f e c t s t he f a i r ne s s , i nt e g r i t y , o r pu b l i c r e pu t a t i on o f j ud i ci alpro ceed in gs. ” Id. ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o n mar k s an d citation om itted ). W e often ha ve st a t e d that this l ast p art ofthe pla i n-e rr or s ta nd ar d requi re s a “m i scar ri age o fN o. 08

- 1307 9

W e ha v e p rev iou sly su g g ested tha t pla in-erro r rev iew is ill- 4 sui ted f or cl aim ed conf rontat ion- cl ause viol ati ons wh en there (co n tin u ed ...) j u st ice ” b efo re w e w ill rev er se . See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. Ande rs on , 450 F.3d 294 , 299 (7th C ir. 2006). The Si xth A m endm ent pr ovi des that“[ i ] n al l cr i m i nal pros ecuti ons, the accused s hal l enjoy th e r i ght .

. . to be confro nted w i th the w i tness es aga i nst hi m . ” U

. S. C onst. am en d . VI. T h e C on fro n ta tio n C lau se ap p lies on ly to hear say, see C raw

fo rd v. Was hi ngt on , 54 1 U.S

. 36 , 59

- 60 n. 9 ( 2004 ) ( ci ti ng Tenn essee v. Str e et, 47 1 U.S

. 40 9, 41 4 ( 1985 ) ) , thati s “ tes ti m oni al ” i n nature , D avi s v. Was hi ngt on , 54 7 U. S

. 81 3, 82 3- 25 ( 20 06 ). I n C raw fo rd, th e S u p r e me Cou r t he l d tha t th e Con f r o nt at i o n Cl au se en ab l es a de f en d an t to bar the ad m issi on of testim onial statem en ts of a w i tness wh o did n ot ap pear at tr i al unl ess the w i tness wa s u na v a i l a b l e t o tes t i fy a nd the de f e nd a nth a d a pri oro pp or tuni ty to cro ss- exam i ne him

. 541 U

. S. at53

- 54. I n D avis , the Co ur t sa i d tha t st at ement s m ade in the co ur se o fa pol i ce i nt er r o g at i o n a r e te st i m o ni al“ when th e c irc u m st an c es ob j ec tiv ely ind ica te th at th er e is n o . . . ongo i ng em er gency, and that the pr i m ar y purpose o f th e in te rr oga ti on i s t o est abl i sh o r prove past eve nts potenti al l y r el evantto l ate r cri m i nal pro secution .” 547 U

. S. at82 2. A l though the CI’ s s tat em ents w er e pr obab l y t est i m oni al h e a rsay p er D avis , I rb y ’ s c o un s e l ma y h a v e h a d g oo d reason s for not obj ectin g to their i nt rod uc tion; ne verthel ess , we w i l l as sum e arg uend o that thei r adm i ssi on w as p lai n error. 410 N o. 08

- 1307

(

. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 m ay hav e been s tr ategi c re a sons f or a def endan t notto object to th e a d m iss io n o f tes tim o n ia l h ea rs a y . U ni ted St at es v. M oon , 512 F. 3d 359, 361 (7th Cir. 2008)

. In this cas e, had Irby rais ed a nd the di st ri c tc ou r ts us t a i ne d a c on f r on t a t i on - c l a us e o bj ect ion t o t h e hears ay st atem ents , the res ult could hav e been t he l i ve and pot en t i al l y m or e f or c eful t es t i m ony ofthe CI f ro m the w itn es s st and

. Faced w ith thi s prospect, i t m ay hav e been to I rby’ s adv antage t o le t the s tatem ents com e i nto evidence through O f fic er Batt erham

. In additi on, the defe nd ant m ay h a v e d e c i d e d th a t, a f t e r th e fi r s th e a r s a y s t a t e me n tc a me i nt o e vi denc e i dent i fyi ng Irby as the pe rs on who was s el l i ng crac k at 805 East Repu blic , i t w a s bestto le t i t and all s im il ar su bs e q ue nts t a t e m e nt s q ui e t l y pa s s be f or e the j ur y r a t he r t hanc al l i ng un due a t t en t i on t o the m whi l e t ry i ng t o putthe c atbac k i n the bag. B eca u s e we dec i de the c as e as s um i ng the prese nce ofplai n err or, w e need not s peculate further. U nd erthe thi rd pro ng o fthe p l ai n-e rr orst andard, I rby m us t d em ons trate th at his su bsta nt ialri gh ts w ere aff ec te d, i
. e. , b utf or a ny c o nfr o nt at i o n- cl au se e r r o r the outco m e o fthe tr i alpro babl y w ou ld have bee n diff er ent. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pr ude, 4 8 9 F

. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 8 0 ( 7 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. We co nc l ude he c an no t m ak e th i s sh o wi ngi n l i g htof th e f o l l o wi ngo ve r whel m i nge vi d en ce o fhi s g ui l t. One o fthe ar re sti ng o f fi cer s t est i fi ed that I rbyto ok a b ag of m ar ij ua na o uto f hi s po ck et an d dr o pped i t o n th e g r o und j ust be f or e he w as ar re ste d ne ar S ar aceno ’ s ca r, and a dr ugtr affi ck i nge xpe r t te st i fi ed th atthi s amoun t o fmar ij ua na w as w or th te n dol l ar s. T he pol i ce v i deo that was re cei ved i nto evi dence showed the bag on the gr ound near I rby

. T he v i deo a l so s ho wed a t en - do l l arb i l l r es tingN o. 08

- 1307 11 betw een the sea t and pa ss en ger d oor ofSaracen o’s car. Offi cer Batter ham tes ti fi ed that he obs er ved I rby go in a n d o u to fthe hous e a t8 0 5 E a s tR e p u b l i c o n t wo se par at e o cc as i o ns : o ne whenhe fed a do ga nd the o th erj us t be f o r e th e r ai d. The v i deo s ho wed tha t th e de f enda nt ’ s s t a t e i de nt i fi c a t i o n c a r d, s o c i a l s e c ur i t y c a r d, an d m ailad d ressed to him at 805 E a s t R ep ub li c w ere pr e s e nti n the ma s t e r b e dr o o m. T he v i de o a l s o s ho we d a pano fl o o se ma rij ua na a nd s ev er alb ag s o fmar ij ua na o n t he b e d i n t he ma s t e r b e dr o o m, f o ursca l es , a nd a g r o ce r y b agthat c o nt ai ne d s ev er alb ag s o fmar ij ua na and fi fty- ni ne bag gi es ofcr ack. The thr ee cam eras g ua r di ng th e fro nto fthe ho us e wer e o n the v i deo

. The m oni tor s l oca ted i n the m ast erbedr oo m t hat were re ce i vi nga l i ve - f ee d fr o m the se c amer as wer e al so o n the vi de o , a s wa s t he s c a nn e r f r o m the s a me r o o m tha twas tuned to the fre quency used b y the Pe or i a Po l i ce Depar tm en t. T he bag of m arij ua n a t h a t I rby d rop p ed before he w as arrested , the ten -dol lar bil l from Saracen o’s car, I rby ’ s st at e i den ti fi ca ti o n c ar d, s o ci als ec ur i tyc ar d, a nd m ai l address ed to hi m at80 5 EastRepubli c were adm i tte d i nto evi dence, as were the m ar ij uana, 16. 9 g ra m s o fcr ack, f o urs c a l e s , t wo mo ni t o r s a nd s c a nn e r fr o m t he ma s t er bedro om , and the thre e s urve i l l ance cam er as. T his array of evid en ce th at w as p resen ted t o t h e j ury was c om p ell i ngpr o o ftha t I rby was i n the i l l eg aldr ug bus i ne ss an d spe ci fi ca l l y th at he po ss es se d wi th the i ntent to dist ribute m or e than fi ve gr am s o fcr ack. Because I rby ha s not sh o w n th at his su bsta nt ialri gh ts w ere aff ecte d by the a d m iss i on o fthe CI’ s s tat em ents, we have12 N o. 08

- 1307

no o ccasi on t o exer ci se our d isc re tio n to r eve rs e under t he f o ur t h pa r to fthe p l a i n- e r r o r s t a nd a r d.

2. Inadmis s i b l eHe ars ay The defe nd ant a l so cl ai m s that the dist ri ct c ourter re d i n a dmi t t i ngthe CI ’ s s t a t e men t s b e c a us e the y wer e i na dm i ssibl e hea rs ay und erthe Feder alRule s o fEvi d en ce. I rbydi d not r ai se thi s o bj ecti on a t t ri al, so we re view f or pla i n er ro r. Even i fthese s tat em ents w er e hea rs ay not cove re d by a n y ex cepti on a nd the dist ri ct c ourter re d i n a dm i tt i ngthe m , f o r the s ame r easo ns s ta te d i n o ur d i s c u s s i o n o fhi s c o n f r o n t a t i o n - c l a u s e c h a l l e n g e we concl ud e that su c h err ordi d not a f f ect I rby ’ s s ubstanti al ri ghts.

III

. H avi ng f ound th at t h e reco rd i s no t devo i d ofpro ofo f I rby ’ s g ui l t an d tha t th e ev i d en ce one ac h e l emento fthe charg ed off ense w as not so tenuous that hi s co nvi cti on i s s hocki ng, we rej ect h is c hal l enge to the s uffi ci ency of the e vi dence. Because I rbyhas not shown thathi s s ubstan tial rights w ere affecte d by the ad m issi on o f t he CI’s out- of

- cour t s tat em ents, we need n ot exerci se our discre ti on t o disturb hi s co nvi cti on. W e A FFIRM .

3- 11- 09