Opinion ID: 72120
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Reliance on Hearsay Evidence

Text: Zonia also notes that the Government tried to make its case through hearsay evidence of Edica’s statements to the CBP officers that were too vague to rise to the level of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the district court instructed the jury not to consider Edica’s statements in any way with respect to Zonia. Juries are presumed to follow their instructions. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d at 313. Moreover, the Government did not refer to this evidence in its closing arguments regarding Zonia’s guilt. Zonia argues that Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), “and its progeny place little or no value on this type of testimony because it is testimony that remains untested by cross-examination.” She contends that the admission of this unobjected-to evidence of Edica’s statements should be reviewed for plain error to determine whether it had a significant impact on the finding of guilt. However, she makes no further argument regarding the admission of these statements. An appellant’s brief must contain “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(9)(A). Although she cites Bruton, Zonia does not provide any reasons for her contention that the use of Edica’s statements violated Bruton or that the use of those statements had a significant impact on the finding of guilt. Thus, she has waived any Brutonviolation argument by failing to adequately brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (issues not briefed adequately are waived); see Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 433 (applying waiver rule in direct criminal appeal).