News for April 19, 2026: Non-Testifying Witness Statements Cannot Be Used at Trial, Courts Wrongly Imposing Harsh Sentences, Someone Else’s Criminal History Could Offer Reasonable Doubt

This week’s Corrlinks federal prison newsletter covers several issues: a court wrongly increased a sentence based on the defendant’s status as a cop, a court wrongly prevented the defense from using another person’s criminal history to show someone else possessed the drugs, and a court allowed testimonial hearsay to come in through an expert witness without cross-examination in violation of the Confrontation Clause.

United States v. Thompson, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10463 (10th Cir. Apr. 13, 2026)

Court Improperly Increased Sentence Based on Police Status

The Tenth Circuit vacated a sentence after the district court imposed a harsher punishment based on the defendant’s status as a police officer. At sentencing, the judge explicitly stated that “more is expected” of law enforcement and relied on that status as a reason for the sentence, even though there was no finding that the defendant used his position to commit or conceal the offense. That was the error. A person’s job, standing alone, is not a valid basis to increase a sentence, and the court made clear that emphasizing it as an aggravating factor creates a reasonable probability of a higher sentence. Because the judge used the defendant’s profession as a basis for punishment, the sentence was vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.

United States v. Parrow, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10643 (8th Cir. Apr. 15, 2026)

Court Wrongly Limited Use of Third-Party Criminal History

The Eighth Circuit vacated a conviction after the district court improperly restricted how the jury could consider another person’s criminal history tied to the location where drugs were found. The defense sought to introduce that individual’s prior drug convictions—including sales from the same house—to show that he had the opportunity and knowledge to possess the drugs found hidden in a safe. The court allowed the jury to hear about the convictions only for credibility purposes under Rule 609, but blocked their use under Rule 404(b) to argue that someone else may have possessed the drugs. That was the error. The convictions were directly relevant to the key issue of possession, and limiting their use prevented the defense from presenting its full theory. Because there was little evidence tying the defendant to the drugs in the safe, the error was not harmless, and the conviction was vacated for a new trial.

United States v. Nieves-Díaz, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10587 (1st Cir. Apr. 14, 2026)

Court Fails to Justify Upward Sentencing Increase

The First Circuit vacated a sentence after the district court imposed a significantly higher sentence without adequately explaining why. After remand, the guidelines range dropped to 33–41 months, but the court still imposed 66 months—about 60% above the top of the range. The court pointed to factors like the defendant’s criminal history, ammunition found, and general gun violence in the community, but failed to explain how those factors actually justified such a large increase. Most importantly, the court did not address the defendant’s main argument that the ammunition posed little danger because no firearm was present, and it never clarified why the quantity of ammunition made the case more serious. When a court imposes a higher sentence, it must clearly explain its reasoning in a way that matches the size of the increase. Because that explanation was missing, the sentence was vacated and sent back for resentencing.

United States v. Cartagena, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 10703 (1st Cir. Apr. 15, 2026)

Court Erred in Allowing Testimonial Hearsay Through Expert Witness

The First Circuit vacated a conviction after the government improperly used an expert witness to introduce testimonial hearsay from a non-testifying witness. At trial, the medical expert testified that the victim told her he had been struck in the head with a gun, even though the victim never testified and was not subject to cross-examination. The government tried to justify this by claiming the statement was simply part of the basis for the expert’s opinion, but that argument failed because the statement only had value if it was true—making it classic hearsay. Because the statement was testimonial and used to prove what actually happened, its admission violated the Confrontation Clause. The error was not harmless, especially since the government relied heavily on the expert’s credibility to prove the key issue at trial, so the conviction was vacated.