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