Opinion ID: 204583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unavailability of Confidential Informant

Text: Hopson complains that Brimage, the government informant, was the only witness to the alle ged buys and yet he did not testify at trial because the government claimed it was unable to locate him. In the absence of Brimage, the government presented the testimony of law enforcement officials to whom Brimage told about the buys from Hopson. Hopson asserts that the effect of this testimony was to allow Brimage to testify without actually being present at trial, thus violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Confrontation Clause is violated when hearsay evidence is admitted as substantive evidence against a defendant who has no opportunity to cross examine the declarant or when the hearsay statement of an unavailable witness does not bear adequate indicia of reliability. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 737 (1987). However, “[n]ot all hearsay implicates the Sixth Amendment’s core concerns.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004). Rather, the admission of the declarant’s testimony does not violate the Constitution unless it is “testimonial hearsay.” Id. at 53. Here, Brimage did not appear at trial and his audio recordings were not played. Thus, no out of court statement by Brimage was ever presented at trial. Moreover, Hopson had every opportunity to cross examine the law enforcement officers who testified at trial about what they saw outside of Hopson’s home, as well as in their encounters with Brimage. We find no Confrontation Clause violation here.