## Facts

- Juan Amaya was a ranking officer in the Latin Kings, a Chicago street gang engaged in drug trafficking and violent enforcement of gang rules.
- Amaya participated in a cocaine transaction with an undercover officer posing as a gang member, accompanied by a confidential informant who was an actual Latin King.
- The cocaine sale occurred in the undercover officer’s car.
- Immediately after Amaya exited the car, the undercover officer remarked on a recording that Amaya had a pistol; the informant responded that it was a large pistol.
- At trial, the undercover officer testified that Amaya carried a gun during the drug transaction.
- The defense attacked the officer’s credibility, emphasizing that the officer did not mention a gun while Amaya was still in the car.
- Although the parties had agreed pretrial that the recorded remarks were inadmissible, the government offered them at trial to rebut the defense claim that the officer fabricated the gun allegation after the fact.
- The racketeering charges stemmed from Amaya’s leadership role in the Latin Kings, including a theory that he aided and abetted a gang-related shooting as a violent crime in aid of racketeering.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the finding that Amaya carried a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported Amaya’s convictions for RICO conspiracy and for aiding and abetting a violent crime in aid of racketeering (VICAR).
3. Whether the district court erred by admitting (a) the undercover officer’s recorded remark under the hearsay rules and Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and (b) the informant’s recorded remark under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed all convictions.
- The evidence, viewed in the government’s favor, permitted a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Amaya carried a firearm during and in furtherance of the cocaine transaction.
- The evidence was sufficient to support both the RICO conspiracy conviction and the VICAR aiding-and-abetting conviction based on Amaya’s role and the gang-related motive for the violence.
- The undercover officer’s recorded remark was properly admitted as nonhearsay because it was not offered for its truth and was not unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403.
- The informant’s recorded remark did not violate the Confrontation Clause because it was not testimonial.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence is sufficient on appeal if, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find the elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility.
- An out-of-court statement is not hearsay when offered for a non-truth purpose, such as rebutting an alleged fabrication, showing contemporaneous perception, or explaining why later actions or testimony are credible.
- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, relevant evidence may be excluded only if unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value; strong probative value in responding to a credibility attack can justify admission despite inflammatory wording.
- The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements by non-testifying declarants; spontaneous remarks made during an undercover operation, not aimed at creating evidence for prosecution, may be non-testimonial and admissible.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Amaya’s drug and racketeering convictions, concluding that the trial evidence supported the firearm, RICO, and VICAR counts and that the challenged recorded remarks were properly admitted because one was used for a nonhearsay purpose and the other was non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes.


United States v. Amaya, 828 F.3d 518 (7th Cir. 2016)