context: The district court's admission of Officer Nanney's testimony violated Buffington's rights under the Confrontation Clause. Mrs. Buffington's statement was testimonial because she provided Officer Nanney with the information about the blankets and sleeping bag in the context of a police interrogation.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 506 F.3d 486, 486-87
citation_a.parenthetical: "[Whether defendant] had long guns, shotguns, or rifles in his bedroom was not offered for its truth because the testimony did not bear on [his] alleged possession of the .380 Llama pistol with which he was charged."
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Martin, 897 F.2d 1368, 1371 (6th Cir.1990) [E]ven if an out of court statement is purportedly offered to explain an investigation, it nevertheless may be inadmissible hearsay where it goes ‘to the very heart of the prosecution’s case.’ ”); Cromer, 389 F.3d at 677 (Cl’s statement that defendant’s hangout was a “residence associated with selling drugs” was not merely background evidence because it went to the very heart of the prosecutor’s case against defendant); cf. Gibbs, 506 F.3d at 486-87 (“[Whether defendant] had long guns, shotguns, or rifles in his bedroom was not offered for its truth because the testimony did not bear on [his] alleged possession of the .380 Llama pistol with which he was charged.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 405 F.3d 399, 399
citation_b.parenthetical: statement of identification was testimonial where declarant could reasonably assume that the statement would be used against the suspects in either an investigation or a prosecution
citation_b.sentence: Crawford, 541 U.S. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354; Pugh, 405 F.3d at 399 (statement of identification was testimonial where declarant could reasonably assume that the statement would be used against the suspects in either an investigation or a prosecution). Also, because the statement at issue pertains to the question of whether Buffington possessed the firearms, it goes to the heart of the Government’s case.