United States v. Puryear
This text of 122 F. App'x 389 (United States v. Puryear) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
We affirm Terry Lee Puryear’s conviction. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), is inapplicable, and the Confrontation Clause is not implicated because the informant’s statements on the tape recordings were not offered for their truth.
The district court correctly determined that Puryear failed to show prejudice from any preindictment delay. United States v. Huntley, 976 F.2d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1992).
Any error in the government’s efforts to produce the informant was harmless and non-prejudicial. United States v. LaRizza, 72 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.1995).
The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, overwhelmingly established Puryear’s guilt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).
Finally, any possible errors on the part of the witnesses or prosecutor did not prejudice Puryear’s case. United States v. Nadler, 698 F.2d 995, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 1983).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
122 F. App'x 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-puryear-ca9-2005.