Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

So once you fire them or you quit or your business

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: onardo's statements had been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. o Accordingly, the trial court held that Lonardo's out-of-court statements satisfied Rule 801(2)(d)(E) and were not hearsay. Issue: Before admitting a co-conspirator's statement over an objection that it does not qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) there must be evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonoffering party, and that the statement was made "during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.": In this case was there sufficient evidence for the court to conclude that a conspiracy existed and that the statement was made "during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy" so that the evidence could be admitted under 801(2)(d)(E)? Holding: Based on the statements and the events in the parking lot, the Government had established the existence of a conspiracy and petitioner's participation in it and therefore Lonardo's statements (since they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy) were admissible against petitioner under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) o Because the existence of a conspiracy i...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas at Austin.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online