# United States v. Joseph Arnold

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 18, 2007 · 486 F.3d 177

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499668

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 18, 2007
- **Citations:** 486 F.3d 177; 73 Fed. R. Serv. 583; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 11616; 2007 WL 1452230
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Clay
- **Judges:** Boggs, Martin, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman, Rogers, Sutton, Cook, McKeague, Griffin
- **Cited by:** 204 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499668

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding sufficient evidence to convict on a felon-in-possession charge, observing that “[a]s in all criminal trials, the jury did not have to draw these inferences. But it reasonably could have reached these conclusions—and when that is the case we must respect the jury’s infe…
- concluding that witness’s statements and hand gestures indicating the type of gun defendant possessed sufficed to establish possession where police, soon after, recovered a gun consistent with that description from under the passenger seat on which defendant was seated, even t…
- finding USCA11 Case: 22-14116 Document: 89-1 Date Filed: 11/05/2025 Page: 14 of 29 14 Opinion of the Court 22-14116 that the unprompted nature of the statement and the victim’s “dis- tress” both “suggest[ed] that the statement was nontestimonial”
- explaining that a statement is testimonial where circumstances “objectively indicate” that the “primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution”
- holding that a victim’s spontaneous exclamation, “That’s him,” when her assailant returned to the scene bore “even less resemblance to testimony” than the victim’s earlier statements in response to police questioning

## Opinion text

CLAY, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Judge Griffin’s opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part in its entirety except with respect to section II of the opinion, which holds that the potential impeachment evidence with respect to the private investigator was properly excluded. With respect to the district court’s refusal to admit the private investigator’s statement that Tamica Gordon told him she had never seen Joseph Arnold with a gun on the day in question, I join section IV of Judge Moore’s dissenting opinion. I would therefore reverse and remand for a new trial as would Judges Griffin and Moore.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499668. Public record. Not legal advice.