Opinion ID: 44630
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: admission of witness’s statement

Text: Brown first argues that his right of confrontation as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment and interpreted in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), was violated by the admission of his non-testifying codefendant’s statement into evidence. We find Brown’s reliance on Crawford misplaced. Foster’s confession was 2 admitted against Foster, and the jury was specifically admonished that the evidence could not be considered against Brown. Thus, the testimony as presented was not testimony against Brown and did not violate the rule in Crawford. Moreover, this Court has held that Crawford does not apply retroactively on federal habeas. Lave v. Dretke, 444 F.3d 333, 334-36 (5th Cir. 2006).1