816 F.3d 479
7th Cir.2016Background
- Derrick Smith was appointed to the Illinois House in March 2011 and ran in the March 2012 Democratic primary.
- A campaign assistant known as “Pete” secretly worked with the FBI and recorded conversations with Smith during an undercover sting offering $7,000 in exchange for a letter supporting a grant application.
- Pete induced Smith to write the letter; Pete (FBI) handed over $7,000 and Smith used some funds for campaign staff; remaining money found at Smith’s home.
- Smith was charged and convicted under 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(B) and 1951; Pete did not testify at trial, invoking the Fifth Amendment.
- The prosecutor introduced Pete’s recorded out-of-court statements; Smith argued admission violated the Confrontation Clause (and implicitly hearsay rules).
- The district court admitted Pete’s recordings as context for Smith’s statements; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the recordings were not offered for their truth and thus did not implicate the Confrontation Clause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of undercover recordings under Confrontation Clause/hearsay rules | Smith: admission of Pete’s recorded statements violated the Sixth Amendment because Pete did not testify and could not be cross-examined | Government: Pete’s statements were not offered for their truth but to show meaning/context of Smith’s own admissions, so they are not hearsay or testimonial | Affirmed: recordings were not offered for their truth; therefore not hearsay or testimonial and admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. United States, 504 U.S. 255 (discussing bribery and exchange of official acts for money)
- McCormick v. United States, 500 U.S. 257 (defining bribery and official-act exchange in federal law)
- United States v. Blagojevich, 794 F.3d 729 (7th Cir.) (illustrating bribery/prosecutorial standards in public-corruption cases)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause limits on testimonial statements)
- Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (scope of Confrontation Clause and historical limits)
- Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (addressing testimonial statements by private parties)
- United States v. Walker, 673 F.3d 649 (7th Cir.) (discussion of hearsay vs. Confrontation Clause issues)
A FFIRMED