United States Third Circuit

If a defendant makes statements as part of a reciprocal and integrated conversation with a government informant, who later becomes unavailable for trial, the Confrontation Clause does not bar the introduction of the informant's portions of the conversation as are reasonably required to place the defendant nontestimonial statements into context.

Appellate Information

• Argued 12/16/2004
• Decided 01/14/2005
• Published 01/18/2005

Judges

• Before SLOVITER, FUENTES, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• David M. Nissman, U.S. Attorney, Anthony J. Jenkins, Acting U.S. Attorney, Patricia M. Sulzbach (Argued), Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of the Virgin Islands, Cynthia Stone, Senior Trial Attorney, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Eric S. Chancellor, Christiansted, St. Croix, USVI, for Appellee Elroy Dowe., Andrew L. Capdeville (Argued), St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee Craig M. Hendricks., Leonard B. Francis, Jr., Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee Daniel Fleming., Kevin W. Weatherbee, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee Ranney Laronde., Clive Rivers, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee Andy Antoine., Treston E. Moore, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee Rafael Cintron., Jomo Meade, Frederiksted, St. Thomas, USVI, for Appellee Jacqueline Carr.