United States v. Hamann, 33 F.4th 759

Kenneth Hamann was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine; jury convicted and district court sentenced him as a career offender to 360 months.
Key evidence: (1) Investigator Malcolm Stanley testified about a confidential source (CS) tip that someone nicknamed “Cali” was "moving multiple ounces" of meth and that local police identified Cali as Hamann; (2) Stanley narrated details of a controlled buy though he did not witness it and relied on radio reports and debriefing of the CS (the CS was anonymous and did not testify).
William Davis, an alleged co-conspirator, testified he sold Hamann meth; Hamann made recorded admissions that he sold meth to the CS and at earlier times.
Defense objected at trial to Stanley’s testimony on hearsay and Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause grounds; the district court excluded some statements but allowed Stanley to describe the investigation and the controlled purchase over objections.
On appeal the Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether Stanley’s testimony introduced testimonial hearsay offered for its truth and whether any Confrontation Clause error was harmless; the court vacated the conviction and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Confrontation Clause: admission of Stanley’s testimony recounting CS and non‑testifying officer statements	United States: testimony was background explanation of investigation, not offered for truth; statements were duplicative of other evidence	Hamann: Stanley relayed testimonial out‑of‑court statements that linked him to drug dealing and were offered for their truth; CS and officer were not cross‑examined	Court: Violation. Statements were testimonial, offered to prove truth (linked Hamann to crime), declarants unavailable for cross‑exam; error not harmless; conviction vacated and remanded
Career‑offender enhancement: whether inchoate prior convictions qualify	United States: sentencing precedent (Lightbourn/Kendrick) forecloses Hamann’s argument	Hamann: some predicate convictions were inchoate and thus should not count under Guidelines text	Court: Did not reach merits because conviction vacated; noted defendant’s claim is foreclosed by existing Fifth Circuit precedent but preserved for further review

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial hearsay must generally be subject to cross‑examination under the Sixth Amendment)
United States v. Jones, 930 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2019) (police narrative of tips must be “circumspect” and “limited”; cannot backdoor highly inculpatory hearsay)
United States v. Kizzee, 877 F.3d 650 (5th Cir. 2017) (tests for when out‑of‑court statements create clear logical inference of defendant’s guilt and are testimonial)
United States v. Sharp, 6 F.4th 573 (5th Cir. 2021) (reiterating limits on using investigatory context to admit inculpatory hearsay)
United States v. Alvarado‑Valdez, 521 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2008) (harmless‑error standard and burden on government after Confrontation Clause violation)
United States v. Sarli, 913 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2019) (distinguishing harmless errors when hearsay concerns only uncontested elements)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (standard for harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt)
California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) (defendant’s prior opportunity to cross‑examine must approximate trial conditions)