Opinion ID: 857564
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Statements by others in the drug trade

Text: We have long recognized that: statements by out of court witnesses to law enforcement officials may be admitted as non-hearsay if they are relevant to explain the course of the officials’ subsequent investigative actions, and the probative value of the evidence’s non-hearsay purpose is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice caused by the impermissible hearsay use of the statement. Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1288 (quotations and alteration omitted). The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibits the admission of certain forms of hearsay, specifically testimonial, out-of-court statements, unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a previous opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Id. at 1286 (citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51-52 (2004)). Hearsay “is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Id. at 1287 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(c)). Hearsay is considered testimonial if it is “made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial.” United States v. Baker, 432 F.3d 1189, 1203 (11th Cir. 2005) 4 Case: 11-12232 Date Filed: 04/09/2013 Page: 5 of 28 (quotations omitted). The Confrontation Clause does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted. Jiminez, 564 F.3d at 1287. No error, plain or otherwise,2 occurred with respect to Livingston’s testimony as to what others involved in the drug trade told him regarding Gabriel. These statements were not admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but were to show the course of subsequent investigative action. Thus, the Confrontation Clause was not implicated. See id. Further, Mark Terrell, Hugh McCullough, and others involved in the McCullough drug conspiracy testified later during the trial regarding their statements about the Florezes to law enforcement, and thus, there was minimal unfair prejudice to Gabriel by any impermissible hearsay use of the statements.