## Facts

- Law enforcement investigated suspected drug activity at a split-level residence in Layton, Utah, containing upstairs and downstairs apartments.
- Officers conducted three “trash runs” and recovered items associated with drug use or distribution, including MSM (a methamphetamine cutting agent), plastic baggies (some with white residue), green wrap, duct tape, and a marijuana remnant; a crystal shard tested positive for methamphetamine.
- On July 29, 2005, officers executed a search warrant at the Layton residence; Gerardo Lopez-Medina was present in the upstairs apartment, where officers found items indicating drug use or distribution.
- On August 4, 2005, at a Clearfield apartment complex, a handyman encountered Lopez-Medina during an apparent move and recalled Lopez-Medina identifying a nearby green truck as “my truck.”
- A confidential informant told an officer that police missed evidence during the Layton search; stated Lopez-Medina lived there (identifying details included a “Gera” tattoo), was nervous after the search, and was moving to the Clearfield complex.
- The investigation also involved another person (Lopez-Ahumado) who pleaded guilty to methamphetamine-related offenses; the prosecution sought to use aspects of that guilty-plea proceeding at Lopez-Medina’s trial.
- Lopez-Medina was tried in federal court for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to 235 months’ imprisonment.

## Issues

1. Whether admission of out-of-court statements connected to the confidential informant and a codefendant’s guilty-plea proceedings violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and/or hearsay rules, and whether the remaining evidence was insufficient without them.
2. Whether limiting cross-examination of a government witness about the nature of the witness’s recent conviction violated the Confrontation Clause or was an abuse of discretion.
3. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct warranted reversal because it prejudiced the defendant’s substantial rights.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court found one error in the challenged trial rulings but held it was harmless in light of the full record and the strength of the government’s evidence.
- The court rejected a claim of reversible Confrontation Clause error and concluded any improper admission of testimonial material did not justify a new trial.
- The court held the limitation on impeachment about the precise nature of a witness’s conviction did not require reversal because the defense retained a sufficient opportunity to test credibility and bias.
- The court concluded alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not so affect the proceedings as to deny due process; any error was harmless.

## Legal Principles

- Under Crawford, testimonial hearsay offered for its truth generally may not be admitted against a defendant unless the declarant is available for cross-examination or the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine.
- A defendant’s confrontation right guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not unrestricted cross-examination; trial courts retain discretion to impose reasonable limits on impeachment.
- Prosecutorial-misconduct review asks (1) whether conduct was improper and (2) whether it prejudicially affected substantial rights, considering the trial as a whole.
- Even constitutional or evidentiary error does not require reversal if the appellate court concludes the error was harmless under the applicable harmless-error standard, given the overall strength of admissible evidence.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit upheld Lopez-Medina’s methamphetamine distribution conviction, holding that any error related to hearsay/confrontation, limits on impeachment, or prosecutorial conduct did not warrant a new trial because it was harmless in the context of substantial independent evidence of guilt.


United States v. Lopez-Medina, 596 F.3d 716 (10th Cir. 2010)