Jones v. Basinger

Decision Date18 May 2011
Docket NumberNo. 09–3577.,09–3577.
Citation635 F.3d 1030
PartiesAntonio D. JONES, Petitioner–Appellant,v.James BASINGER, Respondent–Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

635 F.3d 1030

Antonio D. JONES, Petitioner–Appellant,
v.
James BASINGER, Respondent–Appellee.

No. 09–3577.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 8, 2011.Decided March 31, 2011.Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 18, 2011. *


[635 F.3d 1035]

Andrew C. Nichols (argued), Attorney, Winston & Strawn LLP, Washington, DC, for Petitioner–Appellant.James Blaine Martin (argued), Attorney, Greg Zoeller, Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, for Respondent–Appellee.Before SYKES, TINDER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.HAMILTON, Circuit Judge.

In 2004, petitioner Antonio Jones was convicted in an Indiana state court for his involvement in a horrific robbery that culminated in four murders. At his trial, two police detectives testified in detail about an informant's double-hearsay statement accusing Jones as the leader of the robbery and murders. That testimony was allowed on the theory that it was offered not to show the truth of the informant's statement but for the purpose of showing the course of the police investigation that led to Jones' arrest. A divided Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Jones' conviction, and the state courts denied relief on post-conviction review. Jones petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that this testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The district court denied the petition without reaching the merits of Jones' Sixth Amendment claim.

The trial record makes unmistakably clear that the informant's double-hearsay against Jones was in fact used as substantive evidence to prove Jones' guilt, in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. The Indiana Court of Appeals' failure to recognize this fact was an unreasonable failure to apply the Supreme Court's decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), to this case. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant the petition.

I. The Murders and the Trial

Shortly after midnight on January 17, 2004, Ronyale Hearne arrived at Anthony McClendon's apartment in Gary, Indiana, to pick up her two-year-old son A.M. Jones v. State, No. 45A03–0407–CR–339, at 3, 831 N.E.2d 855 (Ind.App. June 30, 2005) (unpublished opinion) (“ Jones I ”). Inside, Hearne discovered that the apartment had been the site of a brutal home invasion that had left three of the apartment's occupants dead—McClendon, Jimmie Jones, and Laurice Jones. Young A.M. was alive but mortally wounded. Hearne rushed him to the hospital, but he died there of multiple gunshot wounds.

Two days later, law enforcement officers received a tip that James Parks, Lenzo Aaron, and petitioner Antonio Jones had killed A.M. and the others in the course of a robbery. The informant claimed to have received this information directly from Parks himself. Based on that tip, Gary police arrested Jones and charged him with four counts of murder.

[635 F.3d 1036]

A. The Prosecution's Case

When the case was tried, the prosecution's star witness was Lenzo Aaron, who testified pursuant to a plea agreement in which he admitted participating in the robbery and murders, but under which all murder charges against him were dropped. On the night of the murders, Aaron explained, he, Parks, and Jones were at a party when McClendon called to ask Jones for help in buying a quantity of cocaine for $6,000. According to Aaron, Jones needed that cash himself and decided to rob McClendon. Aaron and Parks agreed to help, expecting that they would receive equal shares of the proceeds.

According to Aaron, the three men then traveled to McClendon's apartment, where Jones knocked at the front door and asked to be let in. When someone answered, Jones rushed into the apartment, firing his weapon and demanding to know where the money was. Jones and Parks then went into the rear area of the apartment, where, still according to Aaron, they killed McClendon and Jimmie Jones. Afterwards, Aaron said, Parks demanded that he kill Laurice Jones, but Aaron claimed that he left the apartment rather than hurt anyone. (Aaron insisted that, although he brought an AK–47 to McClendon's apartment, he never shot anybody the entire time he was there.) Laurice and A.M. were both still alive when Aaron last saw them. Aaron said he heard two final gunshots as he walked away from the apartment. The three men then went their separate ways. For his part in the crimes, Aaron claimed he received only $230.

Jones' defense vigorously challenged Aaron's credibility. In her opening statement, Jones' attorney noted that Aaron was the only witness who placed Jones at the scene of the crime. She asserted that Aaron did so only “in order to get the deal he got.” “They have no evidence,” the attorney claimed, “other than a man who made a tremendous deal. A tremendous deal to be able to sit here and tell you anything that they need him to say.” As a parting shot at Aaron's credibility, Jones' attorney described Aaron as “someone who has a whole lot to lose,” someone willing to say, “ ‘Oh, you want me to say [Jones] did it? Okay, [Jones] did it.’ ”

B. The Double–Hearsay Accusation—Jeffrey Lewis' Statement to Law Enforcement

In an attempt to counter Jones' attack on the foundations of its case, the prosecution requested and received the trial court's permission to present testimony detailing the tip that had led to Jones' arrest. The prosecution argued that Jones had “opened the door” to such testimony by repeatedly implying that Aaron's testimony was the only evidence of Jones' guilt. Tr. 590–93. Over Jones' objection, the court agreed to allow the prosecution to discuss the informant's tip, reasoning that “one implication of [Jones'] questioning could be that the police are all over God's creation looking for evidence and they found nothing to connect your client to this [crime].” Tr. 594. As a result, the court explained, it would allow testimony about the informant's tip “for the limited purpose of showing course of investigation, which takes it outside of the hearsay rule.” Id.

The prosecution then questioned Gary police detectives Lorenzo Davis and Michael Jackson regarding the tip that initially led them to suspect Jones' involvement in the murders. Their extensive testimony went far beyond any arguably legitimate “course of investigation” use and provided a detailed but double-hearsay account of the crimes. The prosecution was even allowed to bolster the credibility of the non-testifying tipster, a point that would have been completely irrelevant

[635 F.3d 1037]

if the tip were not being used to prove the truth of its contents.

According to Detective Jackson, a man had contacted police two days after the murders and claimed to have information about them. The man refused to identify himself or provide any information but said he would call back later. When the man called back the next day, he identified himself as Jeffrey Lewis and said that he wanted to talk about what had happened at McClendon's apartment.

Detective Jackson met with Lewis the next day, and Lewis told Jackson “who committed the [shooting], what took place, the type of weapons that they used, and where all of these individuals were or lived.” Specifically, Lewis claimed that his brother James Parks had confessed to Lewis that he, Aaron, and Jones had committed the four murders. According to Lewis, Parks had told him that the three men were at a party together before going to rob McClendon's apartment. Lewis also said that his brother had supposedly told him the motive for the robbery: Jones “needed the money to pay his rent.”

Lewis also told the police that Parks had provided a number of specific details about the shootings. The men had gained entry into McClendon's apartment, Lewis said, by simply knocking and asking to be let in. Once inside, Lewis told the detectives, Jones declared that “they couldn't leave any witnesses,” and Parks told Aaron to “finish off” Laurice Jones. Lewis also said that his brother had told him that Jones and the others had made off with “a large sum of money [from] the residence.”

Lewis said the murder weapons were a .22–caliber handgun, a .45–caliber handgun, and an AK–47 assault rifle, and he provided descriptions of the .45–caliber and the AK–47. A man named Shawn Dixon had purchased the AK–47 for Parks, and Lewis had seen Jones with the .45–caliber “a lot of times.” According to Lewis, Parks still had the AK–47, but the handguns had been discarded in a “swampy area” or waterway near Chase Street in Gary. This detailed and damning double-hearsay was allowed despite repeated objections by the defense, always on the theory that it was showing only the “course of the investigation” and responding to Jones' defense that the only (admissible) evidence linking him to the crimes came from Aaron pursuant to his generous plea agreement.

Despite these objections, the trial court made no effective effort to caution the jury not to consider Lewis' statement for its truth, though such instructions should have been given if there were any merit to the rationale for allowing the testimony in the first place. The court never instructed the jury that Detective Davis' testimony about the Lewis statement could not be considered for the truth of its contents. During Detective Jackson's lengthy and detailed testimony about the Lewis statement, the court told the jury that responses to only three specific questions about the Lewis statement should not be considered for their truth.

In closing arguments, the prosecution further bolstered its case with the double-hearsay from Lewis. The prosecutor reminded the jury that it was Lewis' information that had initially caused the police to investigate Jones:

They were already looking for Shawn Dixon and the AK–47 purchase. They were already going up and down ... trying to find the guns that were thrown. And Lenzo Aaron was not arrested until January 26. They were already, already looking for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
133 cases
  • State v. Sinclair
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 9, 2019
    ... ... denied sub nom. Tapke v. Moore , U.S. , 135 S. Ct. 486, 190 L. Ed. 2d 367 (2014) ; Jones v. Basinger , 635 F.3d 1030, 10401043 (7th Cir. 2011) (concluding that confrontation clause was violated by admission of police officer's ... ...
  • Hall v. Zenk
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • August 29, 2012
    ... ... Jones v. Basinger, 635 F.3d 1030, 1052 (7th Cir.2011) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). Hall ... ...
  • People v. Hopson, S228193
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • July 3, 2017
    ... ... truth of its contentsin other words, his credibility 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 726 mattered only if his statement was in fact inadmissible hearsay." ( Jones v. Basinger (7th Cir. 2011) 635 F.3d 1030, 1043.) That the prosecution relied on Thomas's confession to establish the truth of his out-of-court ... ...
  • State v. Valdez
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 2021
    ... ... See, e.g. , Jones v. Basinger , 635 F.3d 1030, 104445 (7th Cir. 2011) (stating that "an informant's out-of-court statement to law enforcement is not hearsay if that ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2015 Contents
    • July 31, 2015
    ...The court agreed the government’s representation was a proper non-hearsay purpose and the e-mails were admissible. Jones v. Basinger , 635 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2011). The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court denial of a habeas corpus petition and remanded with instructions to grant th......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2016 Contents
    • July 31, 2016
    ...The court agreed the government’s representation was a proper non-hearsay purpose and the e-mails were admissible. Jones v. Basinger , 635 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2011). The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court denial of a habeas corpus petition and remanded with instructions to grant th......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • July 31, 2017
    ...The court agreed the government’s representation was a proper non-hearsay purpose and the e-mails were admissible. Jones v. Basinger , 635 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2011). The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court denial of a habeas corpus petition and remanded with instructions to grant th......
  • Hearsay
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2018 Contents
    • July 31, 2018
    ...The court agreed the government’s representation was a proper non-hearsay purpose and the e-mails were admissible. Jones v. Basinger , 635 F.3d 1030 (7th Cir. 2011). The Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court denial of a habeas corpus petition and remanded with instructions to grant th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT