As we continue to explore the proof of prior convictions at sentencing, a particular case stands out and is one that a Lehigh County criminal lawyer better know down pat. This is the case of United States v. Robinson. At the sentencing hearing, to the surprise of the prosecutor, Robinson claimed that he was set up by the government. He insisted that he only sold drugs to the undercover informant, and only as a result of the informant's prodding.
To rebut this contention, a sergeant from the narcotics task force presented hearsay testimony that Robinson sold drugs to at least seven different buyers. The sergeant explained that seven of Robinson's regular customers provided taped sworn statements admitting that they had purchased cocaine from Robinson. Based on their admissions, six of the buyers then pleaded guilty to drug related offenses. Both the Supreme Court and this Court of Appeals have determined that the confrontation clause does not apply in the sentencing context and does not prevent the introduction of hearsay testimony at a sentencing hearing.
This specifically means that the confrontation clause only applies a trial and not the sentencing. Prosecutors, of course, may not introduce any and all hearsay testimony at a sentencing proceeding. The admission of hearsay statements in the sentencing context is subject to the requirements of the due process clause. Hearsay statements must have some "minimal indicium of reliability beyond mere allegation." The court determined that the evidence offered by the government through the testimony of the sergeant easily passes this test. The court noted that the sergeants testimony was supported by audiotapes of Robinson talking with his buyers and taped sworn statements of those buyers admitting they purchased cocaine for Robinson on multiple occasions. Considering the footprint left by this evidence, the district court's decision to allow the hearsay testimony was warranted.