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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. by the time anybody gets to such files they will probably have been totally vacuumed anyways. they're pros at this at universities. anything to protect their incomes. Still, a laudable attempt. Let's go for throat though: how about the idea of unionizing football college football players so they can get a fair shake for their work? then if one of the players is a pain in the neck cut them loose instead of protecting them. if that kills the big programs, great, what do they have to do with learning anyways? nada. just another way for universities to rake in the billions even as they skate from paying taxes with their bogus "nonprofit" status.

  2. Um the affidavit from the lawyer is admissible, competent evidence of reasonableness itself. And anybody who had done law work in small claims court would not have blinked at that modest fee. Where do judges come up with this stuff? Somebody is showing a lack of experience and it wasn't the lawyers

  3. My children were taken away a year ago due to drugs, and u struggled to get things on track, and now that I have been passing drug screens for almost 6 months now and not missing visits they have already filed to take my rights away. I need help.....I can't loose my babies. Plz feel free to call if u can help. Sarah at 765-865-7589

  4. Females now rule over every appellate court in Indiana, and from the federal southern district, as well as at the head of many judicial agencies. Give me a break, ladies! Can we men organize guy-only clubs to tell our sob stories about being too sexy for our shirts and not being picked for appellate court openings? Nope, that would be sexist! Ah modernity, such a ball of confusion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmRsWdK0PRI

  5. LOL thanks Jennifer, thanks to me for reading, but not reading closely enough! I thought about it after posting and realized such is just what was reported. My bad. NOW ... how about reporting who the attorneys were raking in the Purdue alum dollars?

ADVERTISEMENT