Derrick Brown v. Christopher Epps, Commissioner, e, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 13151

A government informant arranged a controlled crack cocaine sale with two unidentified men; recordings of their phone conversations were admitted at Brown's state trial.
Brown was convicted in Mississippi state court; the Mississippi Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling the conversations were not hearsay and did not violate Confrontation Clause rights.
Brown filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after state remedies failed, challenging both sufficiency of the evidence and Confrontation Clause violations.
The district court vacated Brown’s judgment, treating the taped conversations as testimonial and errorful, thereby ordering release unless retrial occurred within 120 days.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed whether the unidentified declarants’ statements were testimonial and thus subject to the Confrontation Clause.
The court held the statements were non-testimonial, reversing the district court and reinstating the state court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether unidentified declarants' statements are testimonial	Brown argues the statements are testimonial and violate Confrontation Clause rights	State contends the statements are non-testimonial and non-protectable	Statements are non-testimonial; no Confrontation Clause violation

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court-2004) (testimonial/non-testimonial framework for Confrontation Clause)
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (Supreme Court-2006) (primary purpose and ongoing emergency considerations for testimonial status)
Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 (Supreme Court-1999) (primary purpose and reliability considerations in testimonial analysis)
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (Supreme Court-1987) (reliability/assessment of statements in Confrontation Clause context)
Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143 (Supreme Court-2011) (objective analysis of primary purpose under Confrontation Clause)