Jones v. Basinger
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6610
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Jones was convicted in Indiana state court for four murders related to a home invasion; the informant’s double-hearsay accusing Jones was admitted to show the course of the police investigation, not for truth, but the testimony ended up proving guilt; detectives testified extensively about the informant’s statements despite hearsay concerns; the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the conviction despite acknowledging potential prejudice; Jones exhausted state remedies and then challenged the Confrontation Clause under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court and appellate court treated the Lewis statement as a state evidentiary issue, not a federal Confrontation Clause issue
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lewis’ testimonial double-hearsay violated Crawford | Jones; Lewis’s statement was testimonial and admitted to prove truth | State; use was for course of investigation, not truth | Yes, violated Confrontation Clause |
| Whether Indiana’s course-of-investigation exception was correctly applied | Jones; exception improperly broad, allowed substantive hearsay | State; exception justified to explain investigation | No, misapplied Crawford; allowed inadmissible hearsay |
| Bruton/Street implications for non-testifying accomplice confession | Confession through Lewis and Parks was prejudicial per Bruton/Street | State; limiting instructions mitigated prejudice | Yes, Bruton/Street require exclusion or proper redaction; prejudice substantial |
| Whether the error was harmless under Brecht/Chapman | Error had substantial influence on verdict given reliance on Lewis’ statement | Other evidence supported guilt; instructions limited use | No, error not harmless; substantial prejudice to jury’s evaluation |
| Whether AEDPA unreasonable application standard is met | State courts misapplied Crawford; unreasonable under AEDPA | State courts reasonably applied Crawford | Yes, state court’s application unreasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay and confrontation rights)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1968) (accomplice confession implicating co-defendant; cross-examination required)
- Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1985) (non-hearsay use versus hearsay risks; need for limiting instructions or redaction)
- Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1974) (cross-examination as a core truth-seeking tool)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (U.S. 1998) (redaction and limiting instructions to prevent prejudice)