United States v. Wright, No. 12-3425 (7th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseWright met with an individual who was secretly cooperating with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and the Chicago Police Department as a confidential informant and was wearing a wire. The CI told Wright that he had a customer, looking to buy cocaine. Wright said he was stocked up. The CI did not testify at trial, but the prosecution presented evidence that Wright admitted to stocking up drugs for sale. Wright was convicted of cocaine distribution and sentenced to 150 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that Wright’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when the CI’s statements were admitted without live testimony. The statements, mostly confirmatory inquiries, were used to provide necessary context for Wright’s admissions, which does not violate the Confrontation Clause. The court also rejected an argument that the court should have told the jury that it could draw an adverse inference against the prosecution because it did not call the informant to the stand. The primary purpose of the missing witness instruction is to address situations where a defendant was unfairly deprived of and opportunity to elicit favorable testimony; Wright failed to show that the CI would have given such helpful testimony.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.