U.S. v. JIMINEZ, 2009 WL 921437 (11th Cir. April 7, 2009)
The defendant Jimenez and his brother were convicted of charges concerning the manufacture and distribution of at least 100 marijuana plants found in a rural home they occupied. The court found the evidence sufficient to support a conviction of Jiminez, who lived in the house. The evidence of guilt could also include the defendant’s own testimony which the jury could reject and consider as substantive evidence of the defendant’s guilt.
Statements by codefendant incriminating the defendant were admissible.
The defendant challenged an agent’s statement that the co-defendant said that Jimenez was a participant in the grow-house operation. On appeal the defendant challenged the admission on the Sixth Amendment. At trial the defendant did not object to the testimony based on the Confrontation Clause, but instead relied on hearsay grounds. The court noted that a hearsay objection does not preserve a Confrontation Clause objection. The appellate court found no Confrontation Clause violation where the defendant failed to show violation of substantial rights for a violation of the Confrontation Clause.
