Dominguez

MEMORANDUM *

Dominguez appeals her conviction for conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance, claiming that the court improperly admitted hearsay testimony and that the prosecution’s testimony about a contract with a paid informant was impermissible vouching. She also claims that counsel was constitutionally ineffective in failing, among other things, to ask for a limiting instruction to address the alleged hearsay testimony.

At trial, the informant testified that his girlfriend told him Dominguez was a drug runner. The court admitted the testimony over defendant’s objection because the testimony provided background information showing what the informant believed and why the DEA began investigating the case; it was not admitted to prove what Dominguez had done. The district court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 , 398 n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 1121 , 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986) (noting that “statements [that] are not introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted ... do not come within the traditional definition of hearsay”).

The government’s testimony about the informant’s contract with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) was admissible. The…