The court staked out no new legal ground in its opinions last week, so I’ll just briefly describe a case that nicely illustrates a classic problem in evidence law.  Based on information provided by a confidential informant, Milwaukee police stopped a Ford Excursion on suspicion of drug activity.  Inside were Marc Cannon (the driver), David Harris (Cannon’s cousin), $8,900 in cash (found in Harris’s pockets), and a brick of cocaine.  The cash pointed to Harris’s likely involvement in the drug-dealing operation, but, without more, the evidence still seems short of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

At trial, the government thus relied heavily on the testimony of the confidential informant, Anderson, who recounted a series of interactions with Cannon and Harris.  Perhaps most damaging to Harris was testimony that Cannon told Anderson that his cousin was coming to Milwaukee with a signficant amount of cocaine.  This testimony, of course, was hearsay: Cannon himself did not testify, and Harris had no ability to cross-examine him.  In order to overcome the hearsay problem, the government relied on the exception for statements by co-conspirators.  But this required the government to prove that Cannon and Harris were indeed co-conspirators, and the strongest evidence of that were the very statements whose admissibility was at issue.  The government’s argument thus had something of a boot-strapping character.