## Facts

- Federal and local officers used a confidential informant (CI) working with the DEA to conduct a controlled purchase of crack cocaine from Patrick B. Wallace.
- The CI wore a concealed camera that captured audio and video of the transaction inside an apartment.
- At trial, the government introduced the recording of the controlled buy.
- The CI did not testify at trial.
- A DEA agent who supervised the operation testified, authenticated the recording, and narrated what appeared on the video; the agent was available for cross-examination.
- Wallace objected that admitting the video without the CI violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
- A jury convicted Wallace of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting a controlled-buy video made by a non-testifying CI violates the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
2. Whether the recording is a “testimonial” statement subject to confrontation or non-testimonial real evidence depicting events.
3. Whether the supervising agent’s narration and explanation of the video constituted inadmissible hearsay or Confrontation Clause error.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the recording was non-testimonial evidence of events, not testimonial statements by the CI.
- The court held the Confrontation Clause did not require the CI’s in-court testimony as a prerequisite to admitting the recording.
- The court held the agent’s testimony was permissible because the agent testified in court and was subject to cross-examination, and the government did not use the agent to introduce testimonial hearsay from the CI.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause restricts admission of out-of-court testimonial statements offered against a defendant unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant previously had an opportunity to cross-examine.
- A video or audio recording that functions as direct documentation of conduct (similar to surveillance footage or photographs) is not, by itself, a testimonial statement triggering confrontation requirements.
- The Sixth Amendment does not require confrontation of every person involved in collecting evidence; it focuses on absent declarants whose testimonial statements are introduced for their truth.
- Explanatory testimony about a recording may be admissible when the witness testifies in court, is cross-examined, and does not serve as a conduit for an absent declarant’s testimonial assertions.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld Wallace’s conviction, ruling that a controlled-buy recording made by a non-testifying informant was admissible as non-testimonial real evidence and that the supervising agent’s in-court narration, subject to cross-examination, did not violate the Confrontation Clause.


United States v. Wallace, 753 F.3d 671 (7th Cir. 2014)