## Facts

- During a September 14, 2001 crack-cocaine transaction in Richmond, Virginia, Peter Robert Jordan and Arthur Lorenzo Gordon abducted Dwayne Tabon from an apartment, took him to another location, and set him on fire.
- Tabon suffered burns over most of his body and died about ten days later.
- A federal grand jury charged Jordan and Gordon with murder while engaged in a drug-trafficking conspiracy and related firearm counts; Jordan was also charged with a longer-running drug-distribution conspiracy.
- At trial, the government introduced out-of-court statements by Octavia Brown, an alleged participant in the drug conspiracy who died before trial.
- Brown’s statements were relayed primarily through her friend Paul Adams and described her involvement in planning a robbery connected to the drug transaction, including placing a call to the drug source and being present when guns were pointed at Tabon.
- The district court admitted Brown’s statements as statements against penal interest under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) and found they were non-testimonial for Confrontation Clause purposes.
- The jury convicted Jordan on all counts.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting Octavia Brown’s out-of-court statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because the statements were testimonial and Jordan had no prior opportunity for cross-examination.
2. Whether Brown’s statements were admissible under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) as statements against penal interest supported by corroborating circumstances indicating trustworthiness.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Jordan’s convictions when viewed in the light most favorable to the government.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed Jordan’s convictions.
- The court held Brown’s statements to a friend were non-testimonial and therefore did not trigger exclusion under the Confrontation Clause.
- The court upheld admission of the statements under Rule 804(b)(3), concluding they were genuinely self-inculpatory and adequately corroborated.
- The court found the evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find Jordan guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each offense.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause, as construed in *Crawford*, bars admission of testimonial hearsay from an unavailable declarant absent a prior opportunity for cross-examination; non-testimonial hearsay is not barred on that ground.
- Informal, conversational statements to acquaintances generally are non-testimonial when made without a reasonable expectation they will be used in a later prosecution.
- Under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3), a deceased declarant is “unavailable,” and statements that subject the declarant to criminal liability may be admitted if corroborating circumstances indicate trustworthiness.
- Sufficiency review requires affirmance if, viewing the evidence in the government’s favor, any rational factfinder could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Jordan’s convictions, holding that an unavailable coconspirator’s informal self-inculpatory statements to a friend were non-testimonial and admissible under Rule 804(b)(3), and that the total evidence permitted a rational jury to convict on all counts.


United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007)