Antonio Jones v. James Basinger

by
After exhausting state appeals of his conviction and 240-year sentence for a 2004 Indiana home invasion that resulted in four deaths, the defendant unsuccessfully sought a writ of habeas corpus. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded. The prosecution's witnesses included a participant in the crime, who testified as part of a plea bargain, and police officers, who testified about a "tip" that led them to the defendant. The double-hearsay testimony of the officers, which included statements supposedly made by the defendant to the tipster, was admitted on the theory that it was offered, not for the truth of the matters asserted, but to show the course of the investigation. The court did not instruct the jury of the limited purpose of the testimony. The double-hearsay testimony was, "beyond reasonable dispute," offered to establish the truth of the statements made, in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The prosecution went to great lengths to establish the credibility of the absent tipster. The state court incorrectly applied the "course of investigation" exception; there was no attempt to appropriately limit the testimony or instruct the jury. The testimony had a substantial, injurious impact.