Renardo Carter v. Timothy Douma
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13763
7th Cir.2015Background
- Police used a confidential informant (CI) who identified Carter as a drug distributor and, at the officer’s direction, called Carter to request "teeners" (1/16 oz) while the officer listened and observed Carter answer the phone. Carter then drove off.
- Officers chased Carter; he fled into the Wisconsin River, was seen tearing open small baggies and dumping their contents into the water, and was observed holding a large bag that appeared to contain crack/powder cocaine. Twelve baggie corners were later recovered; only 0.2 g of cocaine was recovered and tested.
- Prosecutor initially intended to call the CI but disclosed the CI’s identity late; the trial court barred the CI from testifying but allowed officers to describe their interactions with the CI consistent with hearsay rules. Defense counsel did not object to the officers’ testimony about the CI.
- The prosecutor relied on the officer testimony and the CI-related evidence in closing; the jury acquitted on the 15–40 g count but convicted Carter of possessing 5–15 g with intent to deliver.
- Carter raised (a) a Confrontation Clause claim that admitting the CI-related testimony violated Crawford, but failed to contemporaneously object at trial; and (b) an ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland for counsel’s failure to object. State courts rejected both claims; the federal district court denied habeas relief and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Officer Webster’s testimony about the CI (identifying Carter and the phone call) violated the Confrontation Clause | CI’s out-of-court statements were testimonial; admitting them without CI’s testimony denied Carter his Sixth Amendment right | Carter procedurally defaulted the Confrontation claim by not objecting at trial; state court reviewed only as ineffective-assistance/plain-error and denied relief | Procedural default bars federal review; Carter did not show cause and prejudice or actual innocence, so Confrontation claim denied |
| Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not objecting to testimony about CI’s ordering of "teeners" | Failure to object to testimonial hearsay was deficient performance under Strickland and prejudiced the outcome | The officer’s description of the CI asking for "teeners" were non-hearsay verbal acts and/or admitted to explain the course of investigation; any objection would have been futile or harmless | Even assuming deficiency, Carter failed to show prejudice; state court reasonably found no reasonable probability of a different result |
| Whether testimony that the CI identified Carter as a drug distributor was admissible as "course of investigation" (thus non-hearsay) | The "course of investigation" rationale was misused to admit testimonial hearsay core to the prosecution’s case | The identification was used only to explain why police targeted Carter, not for its truth; limited use did not violate Crawford | The court declined to decide definitively whether this was deficient performance but held state court reasonably concluded any error was not prejudicial |
| Whether habeas relief is appropriate under AEDPA deference | N/A (Carter argues state court unreasonably applied Crawford and Strickland) | State court’s Strickland and evidentiary rulings were reasonable and entitled to AEDPA deference | AEDPA standard not satisfied; denial of habeas corpus affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑pronged ineffective assistance standard)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (testimonial out‑of‑court statements inadmissible unless declarant unavailable and prior cross‑examination opportunity)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA deference and standard for unreasonable application of federal law)
- Jones v. Basinger, 635 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir.) (limits on the "course of investigation" rationale for admitting informant hearsay)
- Schindler v. Seiler, 474 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir.) (verbal acts are non‑hearsay)
- United States v. Moreno, 233 F.3d 937 (7th Cir.) (statements constituting verbal acts are not hearsay)
- Lambert v. McBride, 365 F.3d 557 (7th Cir.) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections)