Admission of statements made by coconspirators during course of conspiracy does not violate Confrontation Clause

CONFRONTATION CLAUSE/EVIDENCE United States v. Townley, No. 05-8066, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jan. 10, 2007)(Wyoming). Appeal of conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841 (b)(1)(A)(viii), and 846; 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C); and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C). HELD: Admission of statements made by coconspirators during course of conspiracy and in furtherance of conspiracy does not violate Confrontation Clause. Under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), statements by non-testifying declarant are barred by Confrontation Clause only if statements are testimonial in nature (i.e., reasonable person in position of declarant would objectively foresee that his statement might be used in investigation or prosecution of crime). Statements at issue here were made among coconspirators, not at hearing or trial or as result of police interrogation. Therefore, no reasonable person in position of declarants would have objectively foreseen that their statements would be used in investigation or prosecution of conspiracy. Read the opinion here.