CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that the Government’s proffered
coconspirator statements are conditionally admissible pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E), subject to

proof of the conspiracy at trial. See Santiago, 582 F.2d at 1131; Cox, 923 F.2d at 526.

ENTER: Banele Yh een }

BLANCHE M. MANNING
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

pate: MAR 17 2003


these endangered animals while the animals were caged.

After shooting the animals, Kapp sold their meat to Czimer’s Game and Sea Foods, Inc.,
in Lockport, Illinois, with the knowledge that the meat would be processed and sold to the public
for human consumption. After the animals were skinned, Kapp caused their hides and skulls to
be mounted and sold as trophies.

After reviewing the Government’s Santiago proffer, this Court finds that the Government
has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it is “more likely than not” that Kapp and Co-
Defendants Steven Galecki and Kevin Ramsey conspired to sell and purchase live endangered
animals in violation of the ESA and the Lacey Act and that the recorded conversations between
the Government’s confidential informant (“CI”) and Kapp and Kapp and undercover government
agents (“UA”) were in furtherance of the conspiracy. The recorded conversations between the
CI, the UA, and Kapp concemed the purchase, slaughter, transport and sale of endangered
species and the preparation of false paper work to hide the conspirators’ illegal activity.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Government’s proffered coconspirator statements
are conditionally admissible pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E), subject to proof of the conspiracy at

trial. See Santiago, 582 F.2d at 1131; Cox, 923 F.2d at 526.


Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned J i Sitting Judge if Oth
aor Magistrate jue Blanche M. Manning thant Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 G418 DATE March 17, 2003
CASE United States of America v. Kapp
TITLE

{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the
nature of the motion being presented.)

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

3) Oo Answer brief to motion due___._ Reply to answer brief due

(4) a Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) go Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—ssetfor___—— at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—_—ssetfor at
7) a Trial[set for/re-set for}on__—_at

(8) o [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_____at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

OFRCP4(m) General Rule 21 OFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(40) © [Other docket entry] For the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and Order, the Court
finds that the Government’s proffered coconspirator statements are conditionally admissible pursuant
to Rule 801(d)(2)(E), subject to proof of the conspiracy at trial. See Santiago, 582 F.2d at 1131; Cox,
923 F.2d at 526.

a) [For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. > not
sumber of notices

¢ | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by tzlephone.

LUACI LONSI sn

Docketing to mail notices. this
Mail AO 450 form.

Shel Wd LI eye eu
OT 3-07 ld

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
RTS deputy’s

Date/time received in

central Clerk’s Office mulling deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES of AMERICA )
) Hon. Blanche M. Manning
v. )
) 02 CR 418-1
WILLIAM R. KAPP ) DOCKETED
)
MAR 1 8 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The Government indicted Defendant William R. Kapp for violating the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531, et seq.) (“the ESA”) and the Lacey Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 3371, et
seq.) and for conspiring to violate these acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, for allegedly
engaging in the slaughter and interstate sale of endangered wildlife, specifically tigers and
leopards. The present matter comes before this Court on the Government’s written proffer,
pursuant to United States v. Santiago, 582 F.2d 1128 (7th Cir.1987), supporting the admissibility
of coconspirators’ under FRE 801(d)(2)(E).'

Under FRE 801(d)(2)(E), statements made by a coconspirator of a defendant during the
course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not hearsay when offered against a defendant.
Before allowing coconspirator statements into evidence, however, the government must
demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it is “more likely than not” that: “(1) a
conspiracy existed, (2) the defendant and the declarant were members thereof, and (3) the
proffered statements were made during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”

United States v. Cox, 923 F.2d 519, 516 (7th Cir.1991). In making this determination, the court

“may examine the hearsay statements sought to be admitted.” Bourjaily v. United States, 483

! The Court notes that Kapp has not filed objections to the Government’s proffer.

| 02


Ln

USS. 171, 181 (1987).

In determining whether a statement was made “in furtherance” of the conspiracy, all that
is necessary is a reasonable basis upon which the court could conclude that the statement
furthered the objectives of the conspiracy. United States v. Shoffner, 826 F.2d 619, 628 (7th Cir.
1987). Under this standard, a statement can be considered “in furtherance of the conspiracy”
even though it is susceptible to different interpretations or was not made exclusively (or even
primarily) to further the conspiracy's objectives. Id.

So long as a statement is “part of the information flow between conspirators intended to

help each perform his role” it is admissible. United States v. Van Daal Wyk, 840 F.2d 494, 499

(7th Cir. 1988). Statements that further the objectives of a conspiracy include those that: (1) are
an attempt to recruit potential co-conspirators, see Shoffner, 826 F.2d at 628; (2) seek to control
damage to an ongoing conspiracy, see Van Daal Wyk, 840 F.2d at 499; (3) are made to keep
co-conspirators advised of the progress of the conspiracy, see United States v. Potts, 840 F.2d
368, 371 (7th Cir.1987); and (4) attempt to conceal the conspiracy, see United States v. Kaden,
819 F.2d 813, 820 (7th Cir.1987). Moreover, conversations dealing with “topics [such] as selling
[drugs], arranging delivery and payment . . . have uniformly been held to have been made in
furtherance of the conspiracy.” Van Daal Wyk, 840 F.2d at 499.

Here, the Government alleges that from August to November of 1997, Kapp and Co-
Defendants Steven Galecki and Kevin Ramsey, conspired and agreed to purchase, or caused to be
purchased, live endangered animals, including tigers (Panthera tigeris) and leopards (Panthera
pardus). These animals were allegedly confined at the Funky Monkey Animal Park in Crete,

Ulinois. While at the Funky Monkey Animal Park, Kapp and others allegedly shot and killed