## Facts

- Robert Scott was indicted for conspiracy to possess marijuana and cocaine with intent to distribute, arising from a drug-distribution operation tied to Taylorville, Illinois and a Chicago supplier.
- Trial evidence described repeated trips to Chicago (roughly 1991–1994) to purchase marijuana and cocaine for redistribution, financed and supplied through pooled funds and couriers.
- Molly Rahar testified that before Chicago trips she and Robert Scott’s brother met with Scott, who provided thousands of dollars and discussed what drugs to purchase.
- Tim Burnett testified that after trips, drugs were stored at a lake lot rented by Scott and that Scott would retrieve nearly all the drugs obtained.
- Shawn Jones, described as Scott’s neighbor and friend, gave incriminating grand jury testimony portraying Scott as funding and directing drug purchases and receiving substantial quantities.
- At Scott’s second trial (after a mistrial in the first), Jones refused to testify; the district court found him unavailable.
- To show Scott caused Jones’s refusal, the government presented Billy Chance, who testified Scott said Jones “better not testify if he knew what was good for him,” and that Scott stated he would “make sure that Jones would not testify,” followed by private conversations with Jones before Jones’s refusal.
- The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Scott procured Jones’s unavailability and admitted Jones’s grand jury testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6).
- The jury convicted Scott, and he appealed, challenging the admission of Jones’s grand jury testimony and the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly admitted Shawn Jones’s grand jury testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6) based on a finding that Scott procured Jones’s refusal to testify.
2. Whether admitting Jones’s grand jury testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause where Jones did not appear for cross-examination at trial.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Scott’s drug-conspiracy conviction.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the district court did not clearly err in finding Scott wrongfully procured Jones’s unavailability and therefore properly admitted the grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(6).
- The court held the Confrontation Clause did not bar the testimony because Scott forfeited confrontation rights by causing the witness’s absence.
- The court held the trial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient for a rational jury to find Scott knowingly joined the drug conspiracy.

## Legal Principles

- Under Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(6), hearsay is admissible against a party who wrongfully causes or acquiesces in causing a declarant’s unavailability as a witness.
- A trial court may find forfeiture by wrongdoing based on a preponderance of the evidence; appellate review of the related factfinding is deferential.
- A defendant who intentionally procures a witness’s absence forfeits the Sixth Amendment right to confront that witness, permitting admission of the witness’s prior testimonial statements.
- On sufficiency review, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and do not reweigh credibility determinations reserved to the jury.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit affirmed Scott’s conspiracy conviction, holding that evidence of intimidation and procurement supported admitting a non-testifying witness’s grand jury testimony under Rule 804(b)(6) and that forfeiture by wrongdoing defeated Scott’s Confrontation Clause challenge; the remaining trial evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict.


United States v. Scott, 284 F.3d 758 (7th Cir. 2002)