United States v. Jordan
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
509 F.3d 191 (2007)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A federal jury convicted Peter Jordan (defendant) and Arthur Gordon of murder while engaging in a drug-trafficking offense. In 2001, Jordan and Gordon abducted Dwayne Tabon from an apartment and set Tabon on fire. Tabon died 10 days later from severe burns. At Jordan and Gordon’s joint trial, the government (plaintiff) attempted to introduce hearsay statements of an alleged coconspirator, Octavia Brown, who died before trial. Over Jordan and Gordon’s objections, the district court admitted Brown’s statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) as hearsay against the declarant’s penal interest, reasoning that Brown’s statements were nontestimonial in nature and thus did not trigger the Confrontation Clause. Brown told her friend, Paul Adams, about her involvement in Tabon’s abduction in bits and pieces. Brown told Adams that Brown (1) helped plan the robbery of a drug dealer, (2) called the source of the drugs, and (3) was at an apartment when Tabon, a courier, arrived to drop off the drugs. Brown saw Jordan and Gordon point guns at Tabon in the apartment. Brown followed orders to go outside and lure the drug source upstairs, but the source ran away. Brown did not see what Jordan and Gordon did to Tabon. Jordan appealed, arguing in relevant part that the district court had erred by admitting Brown’s hearsay statements.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.