United States v. Sean Lamont Cromer

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a statement is testimonial where a reasonable person would anticipate that his or her statement would later be used “against the accused in investigating and prosecuting the crime”
• concluding that a statement is testimonial where a reasonable person would anticipate that his or her statement would later be used “against the accused in investigating and prosecuting the crime”
• recognizing that statements made by a confidential informant do not violate the Confrontation Clause when their sole purpose is to serve as background information to explain why a government official made investigatory decisions
• concluding that testimony of officer that he “had information” about drug dealing occurred at a particular address was permissible as background information even though the jury could link that address to the defendant
• holding that statement from a confidential informant identifying the defendant as someone who sold drugs from a particular residence “could only have been [offered] to help establish that the person nicknamed ‘Nut’ ... had been involved with the illegal drug activity”
• holding that even if an out-of-court declarant’s testimonial statements of a certain type reached the jury, they would not have violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause right because “the testimony was provided merely by way of background”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).