Page 34 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat

The case proceeded to a four-day jury trial. At that (1) the district court erred by admitting
trial, law enforcement officers testified about their evidence of his prior conviction, (2) testimony
investigation into Cruz-Ortiz’s suspected regarding the confidential informant violated his
methamphetamine distribution and their rights under the Confrontation Clause, (3) the
surveillance of Cruz-Ortiz and Jones. This district court erred by not ordering disclosure of
testimony included multiple references to tips and the identity of the confidential informant, and (4)
other information received from the confidential the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s
informant. Jones objected to this testimony on verdict on any of the four counts. Jones further
hearsay grounds. The district court sustained some contends that his revocation judgment must be
objections, but determined that other references to vacated because it was predicated on an invalid
the confidential informant were admissible to conviction. We address each argument in turn.
explain the officers’ actions rather than for the
We turn next to Jones’s challenge under the
truth of the matter asserted in the statements.
Confrontation Clause. The Sixth Amendment
Over Jones’s continued objection, the district provides a criminal defendant with the right “to be
court also admitted evidence of Jones’s prior confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S.
judgment of conviction. The district court Const. Amend. VI. “[T]his bedrock procedural
instructed the jury that it could not consider the guarantee” protects against convictions based on
prior conviction as proof of the crimes charged, out-of-court accusations that the defendant cannot
except as to the charge for being a felon in test “in the crucible of cross-examination.”
possession of a firearm. The district court further Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 42, 61
instructed the jury that, if it found beyond a (2004). To satisfy the Confrontation Clause,
reasonable doubt from other evidence that Jones “[t]estimonial statements of witnesses absent
committed the acts charged in the indictment, it from trial” may be “admitted only where the
could consider evidence of similar acts allegedly declarant is unavailable, and only where the
committed on other occasions to determine intent, defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-
motive, opportunity, plan, or absence of mistake. examine.”

The district court denied Jones’s motion for a Prior to and during trial, Jones made multiple
judgment of acquittal, and the jury found Jones objections to the government’s use of information
guilty on all four counts. The district court later from its confidential informant. We focus our
denied a post-trial motion for judgment of Confrontation Clause analysis on the following
acquittal or, alternatively, a new trial. Jones was series of exchanges with Agent Clayborne. The
sentenced to a total of 300 months’ imprisonment, first occurred on direct examination:
the mandatory minimum for his offenses. At the
Prosecutor: [B]ased on the information you’d
same sentencing hearing, the district court found
received, Coy Jones had received a large amount
that Jones violated his supervised release on the
of methamphetamine?
2010 federal conviction because of his new
criminal conviction in this case. The district court Defense: Objection. Hearsay.
sentenced Jones to 18 months’ imprisonment on
the revocation, to run consecutively to his 300 Prosecutor: I’ll withdraw the question.
month term.
The Court: That objection is overruled.
Jones now appeals his convictions and the
Prosecutor: I’ll withdraw the question, your
revocation of his supervised release. He argues
Honor. The Court: All right.

30 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal