In prosecution under 18 USC section 666(a)(1)(B) that alleged that defendant-Illinois House Representative wrote letter of recommendation on behalf of third party to another public official in exchange for money, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting recorded conversations between informant and defendant that concerned said transaction, even though informant did not testify at trial. Said admission did not violate either 6th Amendment Confrontation Clause or hearsay rule, since admission of recorded statements were not offered for truth of matters asserted by informant and were not testimonial in nature. Ct. further noted that informant’s statements were used only to show that defendant himself understood nature of proposal to exchange letter of recommendation for money.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Evidence