United States v. James Saget, Also Known as Hesh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that statements made by a co-conspirator to a confidential informant that were recorded without the co-conspirator’s knowledge were not testimonial
• noting that the possible formulations set forth by the Supreme Court of what is “testimonial” all share that common feature
• finding that the bulk of 12 confessor’s statements were self-inculpatory because they 13 described acts that the defendant and the confessor committed 14 jointly
• suggesting that the co-conspirator statement was non-testimonial because the declarant “believed that he was having a casual conversation with a friend and potential co- conspirator”
• stating that “a declarant’s statements to a confidential informant, whose true status is unknown to the declarant, do not constitute testimony” for purposes of the Confrontation Clause.
• explaining that under Roberts, “[a]ny out-of-court statement was constitutionally admissible so long as it fell within an exception to the hearsay rule or, if that exception was not firmly rooted, the court found that the statement was likely to be reliable”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).