## Facts

- Dricko Huskey was charged with conspiracy under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
- At trial, Huskey sought to introduce statements made by confidential Federal Bureau of Investigation informants.
- Huskey offered the statements for their truth and argued they were admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule, contending that an informant has a reliability incentive because lying to the FBI would defeat the purpose of serving as an informant.
- The informant statements were not consistent with each other or with other evidence in the record.
- One informant statement said Huskey had been demoted within his gang but remained a member.
- Another informant statement said Huskey had been kicked out of the gang entirely.
- A third statement said Huskey was cooperating with law enforcement while in jail in December 2012, even though there was no record of any arrest of Huskey at that time.
- Another informant statement said Huskey moved out of the Shelby, North Carolina, area in 2012, despite other testimony indicating Huskey was selling drugs in Shelby in 2013.
- The district court excluded the informant statements.
- Huskey was convicted and appealed, challenging the exclusion of the informant hearsay.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err by excluding confidential FBI-informant statements offered by the defendant under the residual hearsay exception, where the statements were conflicting and at odds with other evidence?

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the district court’s evidentiary ruling and Huskey’s conviction.
- The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the proffered informant statements lacked equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness required for admission under the residual hearsay exception.
- The court reasoned that Huskey’s claimed “guarantee” of reliability—that informants would not lie to the FBI—did not establish sufficient trustworthiness on this record, especially given internal inconsistencies among the statements and conflicts with other evidence (including the absence of an arrest record for the claimed December 2012 jail cooperation).
- Because the residual exception is reserved for uncommon circumstances and requires a strong showing of reliability, the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the statements rather than placing before the jury competing, untested hearsay accounts about gang status and Huskey’s location and activities.

## Legal Principles

- The residual hearsay exception (Federal Rule of Evidence 807) permits admission of hearsay only when the statement is supported by sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness, is offered as evidence of a material fact, is more probative than other evidence reasonably obtainable, and admission serves the interests of justice (with required notice to the opponent).
- Statements from confidential informants are not treated as reliable merely because they were provided to law enforcement; an informant’s relationship with investigators does not, by itself, supply the level of trustworthiness Rule 807 demands.
- Inconsistent or contradictory hearsay accounts, and hearsay accounts that conflict with objective record facts or other testimony, weigh against a finding of “equivalent” trustworthiness.
- Appellate review of a district court’s hearsay rulings, including decisions under Rule 807, is generally for abuse of discretion, reflecting the trial court’s role in assessing reliability and evidentiary fit.

## Conclusion

In *United States v. Huskey*, 90 F.4th 651 (2024), the court of appeals upheld the district court’s exclusion of confidential FBI-informant statements offered by the defendant under the residual hearsay exception, concluding that the inconsistent and conflicting hearsay lacked the required guarantees of trustworthiness; the court therefore affirmed Huskey’s RICO conspiracy conviction.


United States v. Huskey, 90 F.4th 651 (2024)