Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

DEA agents attempted to record a drug transaction between D and a cooperating witness, Stephen Williams. After searching Williams and his car to ensure that he did not have any drugs or cash, the agents gave him $450 and instructed him to purchase crack cocaine from D. Williams told D that he had only $450 and that he wanted to buy a half ounce of crack cocaine for that amount. D told Williams to return in ten minutes. Williams left d's residence and again met with the DEA agents. They instructed him to return to D's house to make the drug purchase. Williams returned to D's house where D was on the phone, apparently receiving directions to a nearby location. After the phone call, D told Williams, 'we're on,' and said that they needed to travel 'just around the corner.' D and Williams entered Williams's car, and D drove off, the DEA agents lost the signal. The DEA surveillance team saw Williams's car parked on a nearby street, only a few blocks from D's residence. At least one person was sitting in the car. At trial, Williams testified that he and D drove to a house only a few minutes away. Williams remained in the car while D spoke with a man in the doorway and entered the building. D returned several minutes later and gave a bag of crack cocaine to Williams. At a later date, Williams again participated in a DEA operation targeting D. He used the pager number that D had given him after the previous transaction to contact D. In a recorded call, Williams and D spoke in a mutually understood code about a drug transaction. D agreed to sell 62 grams of cocaine to Williams for $1,800. When D arrived, he provided Williams with powder cocaine. They recorded the entire transaction. D was charged with two counts of distributing a controlled substance. At trial, P relied heavily on Williams's testimony to describe the events of the first transaction. D attempted impeach Williams. Williams had used and sold drugs in the past, had been convicted of at least one crime (assault and battery against a police officer), had made inaccurate statements to the grand jury about his prior involvement with drugs, had received substantial compensation for his work as a DEA informant, and had purchased a new car shortly after receiving payments from the DEA. The district court ruled the evidence was inadmissible, including D’s prior conviction as well. D was convicted and appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.