ILNews

Admittance of hearsay evidence harmless error, rules 7th Circuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The out-of-court testimony of a woman who said she purchased crack cocaine from a man who was on supervised release should not have been admitted during the man’s hearing regarding revoking his release, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held Wednesday. But this was a harmless error because the circumstantial evidence supports that the man dealt crack cocaine to the woman.

Munster Police Detective Timothy Nosich drove by a car containing Lorenzo Mosley and Sheryl Simmons. Nosich noted the woman left the car quickly after he passed by. Nosich followed Mosley’s car and pulled him over for a traffic violation. He found marijuana, crack cocaine and a large amount of cash in the car or on Mosley.

Shortly thereafter, police spoke with Simmons, who was carrying a bag of pot scrubbing pads – which are commonly used as filters in crack pipes. She turned over four little yellow baggies that contained the crack cocaine and said she already used the fifth bag she purchased.

When arrested for driving on a suspended license, Mosley was on supervised release. His probation officer sought revocation of the release and alleged several offenses, including distributing cocaine. Mosley disputed this alleged violation, because if the judge found it to be true, he would spend longer time in prison.

The District Court allowed Nosich to testify regarding what Simmons had told him and played a video of her being interviewed for the judge. Mosley objected, but the judge allowed it. Simmons did not testify in person. The judge ordered Mosley sentenced to 21 months in prison.

“In this case, the district court failed to balance Mosley’s constitutional interests in confrontation and cross-examination with the government’s reasons for not producing the witness. This was an error under Rule 32.1. Further, we cannot conclude that the district court would have admitted the hearsay if it had properly balanced the interests because, even if the hearsay was reliable (which we think it was), the government has offered no reason whatsoever for failing to produce Simmons. Accordingly, there is nothing in the record to balance against Mosley’s interest,” Judge Daniel Manion wrote in United States of America v. Lorenzo Mosley, 13-3184.

But this error was harmless because the violation of supervised release would have been found even without the hearsay evidence. The government presented strong circumstantial evidence that Mosley had sold Simmons the drug. The detective witnessed what he believed to be a drug deal and Mosley had a history of selling crack cocaine in little yellow baggies – the same kind that Simmons surrendered to police.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT