The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Mairs, 845 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1988):
Mairs reliance on Hutchins v. Wainwright, 715 F.2d 512 (11th Cir.1985) is misplaced. There the prosecutor in his closing argument referred to statements made by an eyewitness unidentified informant who did not testify. "This violated the defendant's right to confront the anonymous, non-testifying witness." Id. at 515. In the present case there was no reference to any statements made by the father.
The conviction is AFFIRMED.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.