United States v. Matthew King, 865 F.3d 848

In early 2014, attorney Matthew King offered to launder money for Marcus Terry, whom King believed to be a drug dealer; Terry was actually a confidential informant working with police.
Terry recorded multiple meetings in which he represented the cash to be proceeds of cocaine sales; King proposed laundering methods (e.g., sham entertainment business, use of his IOLTA trust account) and agreed to receive and "clean" funds.
Terry delivered $20,000 to King; King deposited/handled funds and issued two $2,000 checks back to Terry.
The government charged King with two counts of money laundering and one count of attempted money laundering; a jury convicted on all counts and the district court sentenced King to 44 months.
On appeal King argued: (1) admission of recorded out-of-court statements violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights because there was no opportunity to cross-examine Terry; and (2) the court erred by permitting questioning about King’s prior cocaine arrest (Rule 404(b) issue).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of Terry’s recorded statements violated the Confrontation Clause	King: recordings were out-of-court statements offered to prove an element of the offense and thus required cross-examination	Government: recordings were offered not for their truth but to show Terry’s representations and King’s belief	Court: No violation — statements were used to show what Terry represented to King, not to prove the truth of the representations
Whether cross-examination eliciting King’s prior cocaine arrest violated Rule 404(b)	King: prior-arrest evidence was improper propensity evidence and should have been excluded	Government: arrest contradicted King’s testimony or was opened by King’s discussion of substance abuse	Court: Admission was erroneous under Rule 404(b) but harmless given the consistency with King’s testimony and overwhelming trial evidence

Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (2011) (confrontation analysis requires determining whether an out-of-court statement was offered for its truth)
Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409 (1985) (admission of accomplice’s confession permissible when offered for nontruth purposes with limiting instruction)
United States v. Powers, 500 F.3d 500 (6th Cir. 2007) (Confrontation Clause violated where informant’s out-of-court positive identification was offered for its truth)
United States v. Mack, 729 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2013) (Rule 404(b) prohibits evidence of other crimes to show propensity)
United States v. Hardy, 643 F.3d 143 (6th Cir. 2011) (harmless-error standard where strong trial evidence undermines likelihood that error affected verdict)