## Facts

- Philadelphia Highway Patrol officers Antonio Santiago and Mark Howard received a police radio dispatch at about 7:00 p.m. on January 25, 1991.
- Over objection, the officers testified to the dispatch’s detailed description: they were looking for a Black male dressed in all black clothing who was carrying a gun in the 2500 block of North Franklin Street.
- Santiago saw Steven Sallins, a Black male wearing all black, walking quickly on the sidewalk.
- As the patrol car approached, Sallins looked toward the officers, threw down what appeared to be a gun, and ran.
- Howard pursued and apprehended Sallins; Santiago recovered a gun from under a nearby parked car.
- Over objection, the government also introduced a police computer record summarizing the 911 call that generated the dispatch.
- In closing argument, the prosecutor relied on the dispatch/911 description’s match to Sallins to link him to the recovered firearm.
- Sallins was tried twice for being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); the first trial ended in a mistrial, and the second resulted in conviction after admission of the dispatch and 911-record contents.

## Issues

1. Whether the detailed contents of a police radio dispatch and a police computer record summarizing a 911 call were inadmissible hearsay when used to show the defendant matched a “man with a gun” description.
2. If the evidence was improperly admitted, whether the error was harmless.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the detailed dispatch and 911-record contents were hearsay because they were used for their truth to connect Sallins to the firearm.
- The court rejected the government’s claim that the details were admissible merely to explain police conduct.
- The court concluded no applicable hearsay exception justified admission on this record.
- The court found the error was not harmless because the government relied heavily on the hearsay description to bolster identification and possession.

## Legal Principles

- Police may give limited “course of conduct” testimony (e.g., that they responded to a call) to avoid suggesting arbitrary police action, but reciting detailed out-of-court accusations is inadmissible when offered to prove the defendant committed the charged act.
- An out-of-court description that the prosecution uses to argue the defendant matches the described suspect is offered for the truth of the matter asserted and is hearsay absent a valid exception.
- The prosecution’s substantive use of dispatch/911 details in closing argument can confirm that purported “background” evidence was actually offered for its truth.
- Erroneous admission of hearsay is not harmless when it materially bolsters the government’s theory of guilt and may have affected the jury’s verdict.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit ordered a new trial because admitting detailed 911/dispatch descriptions functioned as substantive proof that Sallins was the armed suspect, constituting inadmissible hearsay that likely influenced the verdict.


United States v. Sallins, 993 F.2d 344 (3d Cir. 1993)