Opinion ID: 2816856
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Statement Four

Text: Webb testified that DV gang members had told him that they were “jumped in,” meaning physically assaulted, as their initiation into the gang. Id. at 1007. This evidence, too, was harmless. The statement does little to inculpate Defendants in any meaningful way. And several gang members testified about their own and others’ jumpins. The testimony was so cumulative that by the third day of testimony the court instructed the government to move more quickly when questioning witnesses about jump-ins. Webb’s testimony on jump-ins did not contribute to the guilty verdicts. 2 It may be that Webb’s testimony about status was based solely on what he was told by persons who testified at trial. Because the trial witnesses were subject to crossexamination, the use of their hearsay statements would not violate the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9 (“[W]hen the declarant appears for crossexamination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.”). 37