Opinion ID: 195508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Background Hearsay

Text: 27 A DEA agent testified that during a debriefing session the CI stated that Martinez acted in behalf of Tuesta in setting up cocaine deals. Tuesta contends that admission of this hearsay testimony, over timely objection, was error. We agree. 28 As the government conceded at oral argument, the agent's testimony purported to relate an out-of-court statement by the CI offered for the sole purpose of proving the truth of the matter asserted (i.e., Tuesta's role in the instant offenses). See Fed.R.Evid. 801; cf. Figueroa, 976 F.2d at 1458 (noting that so-called background hearsay is not hearsay at all unless introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Thus, its admission constituted error. We conclude, however, that the error was harmless. See id. 29 First, the testimony was cumulative of Martinez's testimony on the same matter. Further, independent admissible evidence confirmed that Tuesta determined the conditions of sale, supplied the cocaine, and witnessed the cocaine exchange from nearby while in possession of a loaded firearm. Thus, we can say 'with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the [jurors'] judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.'  Id. at 1459 (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946) (harmless error standard)).