What is the test for admitting a co-conspirator's statement over an objection that it does not qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)?
MultiRegion, United States of America
The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Arias, 68 F.3d 481 (9th Cir. 1995):
Before admitting a co-conspirator's statement over an objection that it does not qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), a court must be satisfied that the statement actually falls within the definition of the Rule. There must be evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the declarant and the nonofferring party, and that the statement was made "during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy."
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
In deciding whether to admit hearsay statements made by conspirators against their co-conspirators, what is the test for admitting such statements? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is a federal district court's decision to admit statements over hearsay objections reviewed for abuse of discretion? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does a plaintiff have to respond to a Defendant's statement stating that the material facts contained in that statement are to be admitted as a matter of law? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
If a plaintiff makes a statement at a police station that was subsequently suppressed as a result of her statements made in the car, what are the consequences of the suppression of the second statement? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Is there any case law where a police officer admitted to admitting that a post-arrest interview of Faulkenbery was conducted without a written statement? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
What is the test for admitting statements that may not be admitted in a criminal trial? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does the presumption that a person who makes a statement of intent to injure another person be liable for damages if that statement contains two statements of intent? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
In what circumstances will a court grant qualified immunity to a defendant who admitted making a false statement in a search warrant application? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does the completeness doctrine require the admission of portions of a statement that are neither explanatory nor relevant to the admitted passages? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
Does counsel's refusal to renew his objection because it was so forcefully presented and unequivocally rebuffed by the court that it was apparent that further efforts to object would be unavailing? (MultiRegion, United States of America)
