United States v. Walker
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5027
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Walker and Logan were convicted after separate jury trials of drug and gun offenses arising from an ATF sting plot to rob a fictitious cocaine stash house.
- Informant Ringswald, an undercover agent’s target with multiple prior felonies, generated most of the evidence against them but was not called as a trial witness.
- Surveillance and audio/video recordings captured the planning discussions among Walker, Logan, Ringswald, and Agent Bayless.
- The government introduced Ringswald’s out-of-court statements through agents and recordings, arguing they were nonhearsay context rather than truth-telling testimony.
- The district court restricted defense impeachment of Ringswald and limited Ringswald’s cross-examination, invoking a pretrial in limine ruling.
- On appeal, Walker and Logan challenge Confrontation Clause implications and, for Logan, the sufficiency of the fraud/possession counts and the proportionality of his sentence; the majority affirms in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause: admissibility of Ringswald’s statements | Walker: admission violated Crawford; limited impeachment unjustified | Walker/Logan: government used testimonial hearsay without witness or cross-examination | Harmless error; convictions affirmed on this issue |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for Logan on conspiracy and §924(c) | Logan: insufficient proof of conspiracy and gun liability | Logan: no adequate evidence tying him to conspiracy or guns | Sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy and Pinkerton-based gun liability |
| Pinkerton liability for §924(c) | Logan: liability should hinge on personal possession | Logan: conspiracy foreseeability supports liability | Proper under Pinkerton; conspiracy foreseeability supports liability for gun count |
| Sentencing entrapment claim by Logan | Logan: overreaching inducement caused harsher sentence | Logan: inflated drug quantities show coercion to commit larger crime | Rejected; no sentencing entrapment based on record; sentence sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation rights and cross-examination of testimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (unavailability and confrontation requirements for testimonial evidence)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (limits on cross-examination during Confrontation Clause inquiry)
- United States v. Corson, 579 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2009) (insufficient evidence standard in challenged context; informant use limitations)
- United States v. George, 658 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2011) (evidence of conspiracy planning and intent supporting sufficiency review)
- United States v. Haynes, 582 F.3d 686 (7th Cir. 2009) (Pinkerton liability and conspiracy scope for accomplice acts)
- United States v. McLee, 436 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2006) (Pinkerton liability for coconspirator actions)
- United States v. Sasson, 62 F.3d 874 (7th Cir. 1995) (scope of cross-examination limits under Confrontation Clause)