2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 11-7-2007 

# U SA v . W e a ve r P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3888

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . W e a ve r " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 161. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/1611 P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o: 04- 3888 UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

A ppel l ant
v. DELO RES W EAV ER
A p p e a l f ro m U n ited S tate D istric t C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C
. N o. 04- cr - 00320- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ohn P. Ful l am A r gued: J anuary16, 2007 B e f o re : M c K E E , A M B R O , a n d S T A P L E T O N , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: N ovember7, 2007)
Pat r i ck L. M eeha n A nt honyJ . W zor ek, A r gued U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyO ffi ce 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19106 A t t or ney f

orAppel l antT he di s t r i ct cour thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on 1 p u rsu a n t to 1 8 U .S .C
. § 3 2 3 1
. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U . S
. C
. § 3 7 3 1
. O u r re v ie w o f the d istri ct co u rt ’s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f

t h e Rul e s o f

Ev i d e n c e i s p l e n a r y . W e r evi ew th e c o u rt ’s f

in d in g s o f

f a c t f o r c le a r e rr o r. U

ni t ed Stat es v. C r uz , 9 1 0 F . 2 d 1 0 7 2 , 1 0 8 1 (3d C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). A d e taile d o v e rv iew o f th e u n d e rly in g c o n sp ira c yis 2 des cr i bed i n det ai l i n J udge A m br o’ s r el at ed opi ni on i n U ni t ed S ta tes v . A li , N o . 0 5 -2 0 9 8
. [c it e w ill b e a d d e d ]. A c c o r d i n g l y, rathert han aga i n det ai l i ng t hatbackgr ound her e, w e w i l l r efe r o n ly to th o s e f

a c ts th a t p e rt a in to is s u e s W e a v e r i s ra is in g .

2 T hom as A
. B er gs t r om , A r gued 138 D avi s R oad M al vern, Pa. 19355 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee OP I NI ON M c K E E , C i r cui tJudge T h e g overnm entappea l s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof D el or es W eave r ’ s m ot i on in l i m i n e . T he or derpr ecl uded the governm ent fro m intr o d u cing a re co rde d tel ep h o n e c o nver s at i on in its c a s e - in -c h ief. F o r th e f o llo w in g re a so n s, w e w ill v a c a te t he or derand r emand. 1 I . F act ual B ackground an d P roce dural H i s t ory 23 T he governm ent ’ s al l egat i ons incl ude ave r m ent s t hat Far i dah A l i , t he ass i s t ant di r ect or of the Si s t erC l ar a M ohamm ed School ( t he “School ”) , and D el or es W eave r , t he di r ect orof the A d u lt B a sic E d u c a tio n (“ A B E ” ) pr o g ra m a t th e C o m m u n ity C ol l ege of Phi l adel phi a ( “C C P”) , devi s ed a s cheme t o defr aud C C P outof r ent al paym ent s t o t he S ch ool byr epr es ent i ng t hat t heyw er e pr ovi di ng A B E cl as s es t hatw er e neve rt aughtand t hen s pl i t t i ng paym ent s C C P s ent t o compensa t e t he School for tho se n o n e x is tent classe s. T o h elp e stab li sh W ea v er’s i nvol vementi n t he s cheme, t he governm entw ant ed t o i nt r oduce
a conve r s at i on betw een Far i dah A l i an d hers i s t er , Z aynah R aso o l, that o cc u rred o n S ep tem b er 4, 2 0 0 1 (th e “ S ep tem b er 4
co n v ersa ti o n ”). D ur i ng t he Sept ember4 conver s at i on, A l i and R as ool d isc u s s e d v a rio u s a d m in istra tiv e m a tters a t th e S c h o o l,
comm ent ed on s om e of the School ’ s fac ul t y , an d t al ked about t he School ’ s arr angement w i t h C C P. A l i al s o m ade the f o l l o w i n g c o m m e n t s a b o u t S a y e e d a Q u a y e , a tea cher at the4 School: “[S ]he got paid for all summer from [C CP] .” This statement promp te d Ra so ol t o re sp on d: “[S]he ain’ t di d n oth ing .”Al i continued: “[A]lway s people gonna be backbiting us as much as w e do for them.” The c onversation then turned to Weaver. Ali c omplained as fo llo ws that Wea

ver had n ot p ut h e r o n CC P’ s p ay ro ll: “ De lore s is
.

. . just like you said, she does not want me . . . to have morethan her
. And now that I b o u ght this big c ar, I ’m g onna haveto pay for it.” The discussion continued: Al i: [Weaver]’ s b e inga B and I ’m so sic k o f h e r. I ’l l beso g lad when I

won’t ne edher no more . Gonna be askingfor half o f wh atthe school g et. You know wh atI ’ms ayi n g? Ra so ol: Ye ah. It’ s . . . pe tty and ro tten a nd ill e g a l. Ali: Yea

h. Rasool: Cause she’ s already g ettin’ other stuff. Uh, s o Imean come on now it ain’ t no sense in just goingoverboa rd. Ali: Right. B ut Ijust don’t want to do any thing right now with Sayeeda

and them and je o p ardize what we g ot with the colleg e, you know. Cause you know they be the o n e’ s to be calling and sa ying they ain’t nobody hereat this time g o chec k the, you know what, I know they ’d do that. App. 134-37. W ea v er f il ed a m o ti o n to exc lud e th e en ti re Se p tem b er 4
c o n v e rsa tio n f

ro m trial o n th e g ro u n d s th a t sh e w a s n o t a p a rtyR ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) pr ovi des : “A s t at ement i s nothear s ay 3 if

— . . . th e s ta te m e n t is o f f e re d a g a in s t a p a rt ya n d i s . . . a sta tem e n t b ya c o c o n sp ira to r o f a p a rtyd u rin g th e c o u rse a n d in fu rth era n ce o f th e c o n sp ir ac y . ” F ed
. R . E v id. 80 1 (d)(2 )(E ). 5 to itan d R aso o l w as n o t a m em b er o f th e c o n sp ir ac y . T h e c o u rt gr ant ed the m o ti o n w i t houthol di ng a hea r i ng bas ed on the
s t r ength of the br i efs and i t s r evi ew o f a tr anscr i ptof the Sept ember4 conver s at i on. T he cour t di d notacc eptei t herof the g rou n d s fo r ex clus ion asse rt ed b yW ea v er. R at her , t he cour t r eas oned t hat t he Sept emb er 4
conver s at i on w as i nadmi s s i bl e bec aus e the st at ement s m ade t her ei n “ca nnotbe r egar ded as havi ng been made i n fur t her ance of the al l ege d c o n sp ir acy. . . . ” A pp . 2. T he co urtal so 3 concl uded that i t w as di ffi cul t t o extr apol at e any“s t at ementof f a c t” f ro m th e c o n v e rsa tio n b e c a u se “ th e sta tem e n ts s e e m to
c o n s titu te d e ro g a to ry o p in io n s h a v in g n o c o n c e iv a b le v a lu e .” Id
. at 2-3
. A cc o rdin g ly , the co u rt ruled that the s tat em en ts w ere
n o t ad m issi b le un d er F ed era l R u le of E v iden ce 8 0 1 (d)(2 )(E ). T he cour t t hen gr ant ed t he governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o st ay“Techni cal l y , t he fe der al rul es excl ude admi s s i ons fr om 4 t he defi ni t i on of hear s ay r ather t han tr eat i ng t hem as e xcept i ons t o t he rul e aga i ns thear s ay . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 7 3 9 F . 2d 838, 843 n. 10 ( 3d C i r . 1984) A s i n G i bbs , “ [ f ] o rs i mp l i c i t y , we w i l l r efe rt o t he ‘ co- cons pi r at orexce pt i on. ’ ” I d. 6 W e a v e r’ s tr ia l p e n d in g a p p e a l. T h is a p p e a l f o llo w e d
. II. D i s cus s i on A
. R ul e 801(

d) ( 2) ( E ) ’s “i n f ur ther ance” Requi r em ent T h e g o v e rn m e n t ar g u e s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in
ru lin g th a t th e S e p tem b e r 4 co n v e rsa tio n w a s in a d m iss ib le h ea rsay . T h e g o v e rn m en t con tend s tha t th e statem en ts are
exce pt ed by t he hear s ay rul e underR ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E )
. I n or der 4 foran out - of- cour tstat ementt o m eett he co- cons pi r at or
exce pt i on: t he di s t r i ctcour tm us tfi nd by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hat : ( 1) a cons pi r acyexi s t ed; ( 2) t he decl ar ant an d t he part yagai ns tw hom t he s t at ementi s offe r ed w er e mem ber s of the cons pi r acy ; ( 3) t he s t at ementw as m ade i n t he cour s e of the cons pi r acy ; and ( 4) t he s t at ement w a s m a d e i n f

u r t h e r a n c e o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y. U n ited S ta tes v . E llis , 1 5 6 F .3 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. V

ega , 285 F. 3d 2 5 6 , 264 ( 3d C i r . 2002)
. O t hert hanW e w ill th e re f o re c o n sid e r th e se iss u e s w a iv e d , an d w ill 5 n o ta d d r e s s t h e m. 7 fi ndi ng thatthe Sept ember4 conver s at i on w as noti n fur t her ance of t he cons pi r acy , t he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o m ake a nyfi ndi ngs in re sp e c t to th e o th e r f o u n d a tio n a l re q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 8 0 1 (d)(2 )(E ). H o w ev er, W e a v er c o n ce d es th at th e d istri ct co u rt i m pl i ci t l yfound “the exi s t ence of a cons pi r acy , t hatA l i and W eave rw er e mem ber s of the cons pi r ac y , and thatt he [Sept ember4 conver s at i on t ook pl ace ] dur i ng t he cour s e of the
con spi racy , ” A p p e llee’s B r. 8 n
. 5, and she do es not contes t t hes e i m pl i ed fi ndi ngs . R ather , s he ar gues onl y that the 5 S e p tem b e r 4 c o n v e rsa tio n is in a d m iss ib le b e c a u se it w a s n o t in f u rt h e ran ce o f th e c o n sp ir ac yan d b ec au se th e statem en ts are i r r el evant , j us tas t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded. W e di s agr ee. O uranal y s i s i s gui ded bys ever al of our p r i ordeci s i ons addr es s i ng t hi s i s s ue. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. A m m ar , 714 F. 2d 238 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 8 3 ) , f

o u rm e m b e r s o f

a n i n e - p e r s o n c o n s p i r a c y,8 G has s an A m m ar , J udi t h A m m ar , M ar s hal l St i l l m an, and R oger M cF ay den, w er e tr i ed and c onvi ct ed on s ever al char ges
s t emm i ng fr om t hei r cons pi r acyt o i m por tand di s t r i but e her oi n. T w o of t he i ndi ct ed co- cons pi r at or s , C har l es R os s i and M i chae l D ugan, pleade d gui l t yand t es t i fi ed fort he governm ent . T he tw o u n in d ic te d c o -c o n s p ir a to rs , J o h n W e lk ie an d G ilb er B u n n er, al s o t es ti fied agai ns tt he def endant s att r i al
. T he othert hr ee ind ict ed co -co n sp ir ators, Ib rah am A m m ar, A b ed ee n A m m ar,
a n d N a im D a h a b i, w e re f u g itiv e s w h e n th e tr ia l b e g a n . Id
. at 243. A l l of the cons pi r at or s w ho w entt o t r i al w er e convi ct ed. O n appea l , J udi t h and St i l l m an cha l l enged the admi s s i on
o f c ertain o u t- o f-c o u rt stat em en ts m ad e b ytheir co -co n sp ir ators on t he gr ounds t hat t he st at ement s w er e not i n fur t her ance of the
con spi racybecau se theym erel y“con st i tuted narra tives of pa st event s . . . . ” Id
. a t 2 5 2
. Sp e c i f i c a l l y , J u d i t h c h al l enged t he admi s s i bi l i t y of G has s an’ s s t at ement s t o W el ki e and Ross i t hat
w h e n h e a n d Ju d ith re tu rn e d f ro m a trip to B e ir u t, L e b a n o n to p u rc h a se h e ro in th e yw e re c h e c k e d a t cu sto m s, b u t th e ir h e ro in9 h a d n o t b e e n d isc o v e re d . S til lm a n c h a llen g e d th e a d m iss ib ili ty of I br aham’ s s t at ement s t o G has s an, J udi t h, and W el ki e that “St i l l m an ow ed th em a l otof m oneyfort he l as ts hi pm entof her oi n and w oul d have t o payup befor e he c oul d getanother packa ge. ” I

d. W e r ej ect ed t he defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent t hatt he for egoi ng
s t a t e me n t s we r e n o ta d mi s s i b l e u n d e rRu l e 8 0 1 ( d 0 ( 2 ) ( E) b e c a u s e th e yw e re n o t m a d e in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y. W e expl ai ned: St at ement s betw een c ons pi r at o r s w hi ch pr ovi de r eas s ur ance , s erve t o m ai nt ai n t rus tand co h esi venes s among t hem, ori nfor m eac h ot her of the curr ent s t atus of the cons pi r acyfur t hert he ends of the cons pi r acy and ar e admi s s i bl e s o l ong as th e o ther req u ir em en ts o f R u le 80 1 (d)(2 )(E ) are m et. S u ch stat em en ts are m o re th an ‘m ere narr at i ves’ of pasteven t s. Id
. at 25 2
. (cit ati o n s o m itted). W e d istin g u ish e d th e a d m iss ib le o u t-o f -c o u rt sta tem e n ts ati s s ue ther e fr om t he i nadmi s s i bl e o u t- o f-c our ts t at ement s at i s s ue i n U

nit ed Stat es v. P r ovenz ano , 6 2 0 F . 2 d 9 8 5 (3d C ir
. 1980)
. W e expl ai ned thatt he s tat ement s i n P r ovenz ano “had10 been made t o non- m ember s of t he cons pi r acy w ho had no need t o know aboutt he mat t er s di s cl os ed. ” A m m ar , 714 F. 2d at252. P r ovenz ano co n ce rne d the a d m issi b il ityo f o u t- o f-c o u rt
s t at ement s of the def endant s ’ co- consp ir at or( and the governm ent ’ s chi ef w i t nes s ) , R al ph Pi car do, aboutt he defe ndant s ’ i nvol vementi n a l abor- ki ckbac k s cheme. Speci fi cal l y , t he def

endant s ar gued thats t at ement s Pi car do had
m a d e to h is girlf

rie n d s, P a u lette C o m p to n a n d M a ryA n n H a rt, and one of hi s empl oy ees , A l an A br om ow i t z, conce r ni ng ( 1) t he defe ndant s ’ r ol es i n t he sc heme, ( 2) t he l egi t i m acyof a
corpo rati o n centr al t o t he s cheme, ( 3) how t w o ot her
corporati ons centr al t o t he s cheme w er e ca pi t al i zed a nd fi nan ced, ( 4) Picar do ’s high regard for o n e o f t he d efen dan t s, and ( 5) t he fa ctt hatPi car d o t r avel ed t o Fl or i da on one of t he d e f e n d a n t ’ s o r d e r s , wer e i n a d mi s s i b l e u n d e rRul e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( E) beca us e thos e s t at ement s w er e noti n furt h era n ce of t he
c o n s p ir a c y . H o w e v e r, w e c o n c lu d e d th a t P ica rd o ’s s tate m e n ts to11 C om pt on, w ho had bee n i n char ge of on e o f the bus i nes s es at the c en ter of

the s ch em e w h il e P icard o w as in jail, w ere
a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E ) be c a u se “ [ i]f [ sh e ] w e re to
run t he busi nes s , s he had t o know t he det ai l s , and ther efor e, Pi car do’ s t el l i ng her t he sor di d det ai l s w as i n fur t her ance of the
cons pi r acy . ” Id
. at1001
. P icar do’ s s t at ement s t o H ar tand A br amow i t z w er e notadmi s s i bl e undert he co- con s pi r at or excep t i on . “O nlyi f t here w as a reas on for [t hem ] t o k no w t hese th in g s a b o u t th e c o n sp ira c yc o u ld th e sta tem e n ts h a v e b e e n in fur ther ance of t he cons pi r acy . ” Id
. W e fur t her r eas oned t hatt he sta tem e n ts m a d e to H a rt a n d A b ra m o w itz w e re n o t in fu rth era n ce o f th e c o n sp ir ac yb ec au se th e y w e re “P icard o ’s
err and runner s . T he di s t r i ct court m ade no fi ndi ngs , and t he G overn m enthas poi nt ed t o no evi dence i ndi cat i ng anyt hi ng Pi car do t ol d t hem coul d have f ur t her ed the cons pi r acy . ” I d. I n U ni t ed Stat es v. G i bbs , 7 3 9 F . 2 d 8 3 8 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ),
w e re j ect ed t he def

endant ’ s cont ent i on t hatt he tr i al cour terr ed i n admi t t i ng out - of- cour ts t at ement s ag ains thi m beca us e the12 sta tem e n ts “ w e re m e re n a rra tiv e s o f p a s t f a c t an d n o t m a d e to i n d u c e c o n d u c t t h a tw o u l d f u r t h e rt h e g o a l s o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y .

. . . ” Id
. at845. T h e st at ement s ati s s ue i n G i bbs i nvol ved
conver s at i ons betw een J os eph Q ui nt i l i ano, C har l es B i l el l a, and D avi d W hi t e thati m pl i cat ed St ephe n G i bbs ( al s o know n as “J ake” ) i n a cons p ir acyt o i m por tand di s t r i but e mar i j uana. W hi t e and B i l el l a both t es t i fi ed thatQ ui nt i l i ano t ol d t hem t hat he pl anned t o s el l t he mar i j uana t o a pre vi ous cus t om ernamed “J ake, ” t h at “ J ake” w as get t i ng i m pat i entaboutr ece i vi ng t he d ru g s, a n d th a t Q u in ti lian o h a d in v ited “ Ja k e ” to v isit h im to revi ew plans t o im po rtt he d rugs. W hi t e al s o t es t i fi ed t hat he m etG i bbs i n Phi l adel phi a the dayaft erQ ui nt i l i ano t o ld h im about“J ake’ s ” vi s i t . G i bbs had i nt r oduced hi m s el f as “J ake , ” a n d Gi b b s m at ched the des cr i pt i on Q ui nt i l i ano had gi ven hi m of “J ake. ” W hi t e furt hert es t i fi ed that Q ui nti li an o t ol d hi m t hat“J ake” w ant ed t o buyt he mar i j uana t h a tw a s b e i n g i m p o r t e d , b u tn e e d e d t i m e t o r a i s e t h e m o n e y. F in a lly , W h ite te stif

ied th a t Q u in til ian o a s k e d h im if h e c o u ld13 s t or e the mar i

j uana i n hi s s hop unt i l “J ake” coul d r ai s e the funds to p u rc h a s e th e d ru g s . Id
. at841- 42. I n r ej ect i ng G i bbs ’ s cont enti o n t hatt he for egoi ng st at em ents w ere noti n fu rthe ra n c e of the con spi racy , w e fi rs t obs erved that“[t ] he i n fur t her ance r equi r ementi s us ual l ygi ven a br oad i nt erpr et at i on. ” Id
. at845. W e al s o acknow l edged that “s t at emen ts m ad e t o t hos e w ho ar e noti nvol ved i n t he
cons pi r acyar e noti n fur t her ance of i t j us tas cas ual conver s at i on betw een co- cons pi r at or s t hat i s noti nt ended t o i nduce c ont i nued i nvol vement , orot heract ion s t hatw oul d notadvanc e the
cons pi r acy , ar e not i n fur t her ance of a c ons pi r acy . ” Id
. ( ci t at i on
om i t t ed)
. H ow ever , w e re as oned t hatt hi s di d notappl yi n G i bbs beca us e “[ a] s par t i ci pant s i n t he s chem e, it w as i m por t antfor W hi t e and Bi l el l a t o be kept abr eas t of devel opm ent s t o i nduce t hei rcont i nued part i ci pat i on and al l ayanyfea rt heym i ghthave had. ” Id
. at846. W e al s o di s t i ngui s hed t he s t at ement s t hathad been a ti s s ue i n G i bbs , fr om t hos e i n P r o v e n z a n o . W e r eas oned t hat , unl i ke i n P r ovenz ano — w her e “the s t at ement s w er e made14 t o per s ons notpar t of t he cons pi r acy w ho had no r eas on t o know
a b o u t th e m a tt e rs d isc lo se d to th e m ”

— a ll o f th e sta tem e n ts in G i bbs “w er e made t o co- cons pi r at or s . ” I d. W ea verat t empt s t o di s t i ngui s h A m m arand G i bbs by
s tr e s s in g th a t th e yin v o lv e d ru g c o n sp ira c ies , w h ich “ b yth e ir
n ature an d cu ltu re a re d iffe ren t; m an yo f th e c o n v ersa ti o n s are coded orvei l ed i n s om e w ay , m aki ng i tdi ffi cul t t o as cert ai n t he purpos e ori nt entof th e sta t ement s . ” A ppel l ee’ s B r . at8. A l t hough w e agr ee t hatdrug- cons pi r acycas es m aydi ffe rfr om th e f ra u d u len t f

in a n c ial s c h e m e a lleg e d a s th e o bje c t o f th is
co n sp ir ac y , the leg al princ iples ap p lic a b le t o ev iden ti ary d i s p u t e s a r e t h e s a me . M o r e o v e r , n o n e o f t h e s t a t e me n t s t h a twe
rul ed admi s s i bl e i n A m m arand G i bbs w e re “ c o d e d o r v e ile d .” I n A m m ar , t he s t at ement J udi t h chal l enged w as m ade by herhus band t o anothe rm emberof the cons pi r acyr ecount i ng h o w h e a n d h is w if

e o u tsm a rte d c u sto m s a g e n ts to sm u g g le drugs i nt o t he countr y . T he s t at ementSt i l l m an cha l l enged w as
m ade byone co- cons p ir ator t o ot herco- cons pi r at or s and15 i nforme d t h e m t h a tSt i l l ma n was d e l i n q u e n to n p a yme n t s f or d rug s h e h a d re ce ived an d that h e w as n o t t o b e so ld an ym o re drugs unt i l he cl ear ed hi s debt
. T he s t at ement s w er e uncode d
an d co u l d be under s t ood bys om eone w i t h no expert i s e i n t he drug t r ade. I n G i bbs , Q ui nt i l i ano’ s s t at em en ts t o W hi t e i dent i fi ed G ib b s a s “ Ja k e ,” k e p t h im c u rre n t o n “ Ja k e ’s” d e sire a n d a b ili ty t o pur chas e the mar i

j uana, and arr anged t o s t or e the mar i j uana fors al e. T her e i s s i m i l ar l ynothing “code d orvei l ed” a bout th o s e c o n v e rs a tio n s . . I r oni cal l y , W eave rd ir ect s ourat t ent i on t o anotherdrug
c a s e , U ni t ed Stat es v. R eye s , 7 9 8 F .2 d 3 8 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ), in
ar g u i ng t hat“al t hough t her e i s no ‘ t al i s m ani c form ul a’ for d e ter m in in g th e ‘in f

u rth e ra n c e o f ’ req u ire m e n t, th e sta tem e n t,
a t a m in im u m [ ,] sh o u ld a d v a n c e th e o b jec t o f th e c o n sp ira c y ” to be admi s s i bl e underR ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E )
. A ppel l ee’ s B r . 8. H ow ever , herr el i ance on R eye s is u n a v a i l i n g . T h e re , a governm enti nform ant , W i l l i am A y al a, w as perm i t t ed t o t es t i fy16 th atR aul R ey es’ s co-conspir at or, R ob ert o R am i rez, t old him th a t R e y e s w a s p a y in g f o r, a n d d is tr ib u tin g d ru g s . R eye s , 798 F. 2d at384. R ey es appe al ed h i s conv i ct i on for con spi ri ng t o p ossess
an d d istri b u te dru g s , in p art, o n the g rou n d that R am ir ez ’s sta tem e n t to A y a la d id n o t sa tisf y R u le 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E )’s “ in fur ther ance” r equi r ementbeca us e the governm enthad not
e sta b lish e d th a t R a m ire z ’s s tate m e n t “b o th in ten d e d to p ro m o te t he cons pi r acy and di d i n fac thave the ef fec tof pr om ot i ng t he
cons pi r acy . ” Id
. T h e c o u rt o f a p p e a ls re

jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t, expr es s l ynot i ng t hati t“r ej ect [ed] t he def endant ’ s pr opos i t i on th a t th e sta tem e n ts m u st act ual l y fur t hert he cons pi r acyt o be ad m issi b le. ” 7 9 8 F . 2 d at 38 4 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). T h e c o u rt
re a so n e d th a t “ R u le 8 0 1 (d )(2 )(E )
. . . s a y s s tate m e n ts n e e d b e ‘in fur ther ance of the co n spi r acy , ’ nott hatt hey‘ fur t hert he conspi r acy . ’ I ti s enough thatt heybe i nt ended t o p r o mot e t he
cons pi r at or i al obj ect i ves . ” Id
. (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e c o u rt
u lti m a telyc o n c lu d e d th a t R a m ire z ’s sta tem e n t to A y a la w a s in17 f u rth e ra n c e o f th e d ru g c o n sp ira c y“ [ s]in c e R a m ire z ’ sta tem e n ts
e x p lain e d e v e n ts i m p o rta n t to th e c o n sp ira c y to o n e o f its
m ember s i n or dert o fac i l i t at e the cons pi r acy. . . . ” I d. W e u n d erstan d W ea v er to b e a rgu in g that A li ’s sta tem e n ts d id n o t a c tu a lly fac i l i t at e the cons pi r acy , and there fo re sh o u ld n o t be a d m itted u n d er R e y e s . A s an i ni t i al
m a t t e r , w e n o t e t h a tw e a r e n o tb o u n d b y R eye s . M o reo v er, i nsofa r as R eye s h o ld s th a t “ it i s e n o u g h ” f o r p u rp o se s o f

R u le 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) ’ s “i n fur t her ance ” r equi r ementt hat s t at ement s “be i nt ended t o pr om ot e the cons pi r at or i al obj ect i ves , ” w e agr ee. H o w e v e r, as A m m ar m akes cl ear , t he “i n fur t her ance ”
r equi r ementof R ul e 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) can be s at i s fi ed w hen the dec l ar antm er el yi nfor m s a co- cons pi r at orof the s t atus of the
c o n s p i r a c y. B . Stat em ent

s I nf or m i ng aboutthe Stat us of the C ons pi r acy D u ri n g an im p o rt an t part of the S ep tem b er 4
con versat i on , A l i t old R asool: “[W eaver’s ] being a B and I’ m so si ck of he r . I ’ l l be s o gl ad w hen I w on’ tneed he rno m or e.18 G onna be a s ki ng for hal f of w hat t he s chool get . Y ou know w hat I ’ m s ay i ng ? ” W e bel i eve the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s of the Sept ember4 conver s at i on, and t he cour t ’ s concl us i on t hat i tw as in a d m iss ib le h e a rsa yth a t w a s littl e m o re th a n id le g o ss ip
c o m p rise d o f

“ d e ro g a to ryo p in io n s h a v in g n o c o n c e iv a b le p ro b a tiv e v a lu e ,” w a s u n d u lyin f lu e n c e d b yth e f

a c t th a t A li
r e f e r re d to W e a v e r a s a “ B .” A p p . 2 -3 . H o w e v e r, th e re is cl ear l ym or e t o t he conve r s at i on. If A li h ad o n ly stat ed that “[ W ea v er’s] b eing a B an d I’m
so sic k o f

h e r,” w e w o u ld a g re e w ith th e d istric t c o u rt. B u t A li
w e n t o n to s a y : “ I’ ll b e s o g la d w h e n I w o n ’t n e e d h e r n o m o re .” T hi s s t at ementi nform s R aso o l t hatA l i w as depende nton W e a v e r f

o r th e su c c e ss o f

th e f ra u d u len t sc h e m e , an d A li i s l ament i ng thatdepende nce. A l i al s o s ai d aboutW eave r : “G onna be as ki ng for hal f of w hat t he s chool get . ” T h is st at ement i nform s R as ool t hatW eaveri s r eques t i ng a 50% “ki ckbac k” f ro m th e re n t p a ym e n ts C C P a lleg e d lym a d e to th e S c h o o l. Si nce W eaverw as t he di r ect orof the A B E pr ogr am at19 C C P, i tm akes s ens e thatA l i w oul d have be en depe ndenton her t o m ake sure t hat C C P did not di scover t hat t he S cho ol w as a sh a m site a n d th a t C C P c o n tin u e d to m a k e r e n ta l p a ym e n ts to t he S chool
. A l i w as t her efor e i nfor m i ng R as ool of the “c ur r ent
s t atus of the cons pi r acy ” w hen she e xpr es s ed di s s at i s fac t i on
w ith h e r d e p e n d e n c e o n W e a v e r a n d e x p lain e d W e a ver’ s r equ est for half of t he S cho ol’ s pay m ents . A decl ar ant ’ s s t at ementexpl ai ni ng the curr ents t atus of t he cons pi r acyi s “i n fur t her ance ” of t hatcons pi r acyonl yi f the
a d d re s s e e is a ls o a c o -c o n s p ir a to r. See Am m ar , 714 F. 2d at252 (“St at em ents betw een co nspir ators w hi ch .
. . i nfor m eac h ot her of the curr ents t atus of the cons pi r acyfur t h er t he ends of the
c o n sp ira c y. . . . ” ) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee al s o G ibbs , 739 F. 2d at 84 6 (“A s p a r t i c i

p a n t s i n th e s c h e me , i tw as i m por t antfor[the
a d d re ss e e s] to b e k e p t ab re a st o f d e v e lo p m e n ts to in d u c e th e ir
co n ti n u ed p arti cipa ti o n [in the c o n sp ir ac y ]. ”) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h e g o v e r n me n ta r g u e s t h a t Ra s o o l wa s a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r . As
n o ted e arli er, th e d istri ct co u rtfa il ed to co n d u ct an ev iden ti ary20 h ea ri n g on W eave r ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne . H ow ever, w e t hink it
c lea r th a t, i f

th e g o v e rn m e n t ca n p ro v e R a so o l’s in v o lv e m e n t in t he cons pi r acybya pr eponder ance of the evi dence , t he por t i on of the Sept ember 4 conver s at i on w her e A l i appr i s ed R as ool of th e sta tu s o f

th e c o n s p ira c yw o u ld b e a d m iss ib le b e c a u se it
w o u ld th e n b e “ in f

u rt h e ra n c e ” o f

th e c h a rg e d c o n s p ir a c y . C
. Stat em ent

s C onceal i ng the C ons

pi r acy I n U nited St ates v. P ecora , 7 9 8 F . 2 d 6 1 4 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 6 ), defe ndant s chal l enged the admi s s i on of a rec o r ded t el ephone
c o n v e rsa tio n a m o n g se v e ra l u n in d icte d c o -c o n sp ira to r s. T h e ir chal l enge i ncl uded t he ar gum entthatt he conve r s at i ons w er e not in f u rt h e ra n c e o f th e n o -s h o w s c h e m e a t is s u e th e re . Id
. at630. T h e c o n v e rsa tio n s c o n sis ted o f sta tem e n ts “ try in g to g e t th e ir
s t or i es s t r ai ghtabout w hat t hei r j obs ent ai l ed i n ant i ci pat i on of a gover nm enti nves t i gat i on. ” Id
. at625. D efe ndant s ar gued that t he conve r s at i ons w er e i nadmi s s i bl e becaus e thei rpurpos e w as

“ to c o n c e a l th e d e c lar a n ts’ p a rticip a tio n in th e c o n sp ira c ya t a ti m e w hen the dec l ar ant s w er e no l ongercons pi r at or s , havi ng21 t erm i nat ed thei ri nvol vement . ” Id
. at630. W e r ej ect ed thatar gum entexpl ai ni ng: “[i ] f the ac t s of conc eal m entamount t o not hi ng m o re th a n (1 ) a c rim in a l co n sp ira c yw h ic h is carr ied outi n s ecr ecy ; ( 2) a cont i nuat i on of the s ecr ecyaft ert he ac compl i s hm ento f the cr i m e; and ( 3) des per at e att empt s t o cov erup aft ert he cr i m e begi ns t o come t o l i ghtt hen dec l ar at i ons m ade d u r i ng an agr eementt o conce al ar e i ndeed n o tm a d e i n f

u r t h e r a n c e o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c y. Id
. (c itatio n a n d q u o tatio n o m itt e d ). H o w e v e r, w e re c o g n ize d in P ecora t hatt he Supr eme C our thas caut i oned: “[b] yno m eans d oes t hi s m ean thatact s of c o n c e a lm e n t ca n n e v e r h a v e sig n if ica n c e in fur t heri ng a cr i m i nal cons pi r acy . B uta vi t al di s t i nct i on m us tbe made betw een a ct s of c o n c e a lm e n t d o n e in f u rth e ra n c e o f

th e m a in cr i m i nal obj ect i ves of t he cons pi r acy , and ac t s of conce al m entdone af

t ert hes e ce nt r al obj ect ive s have be en att ai ned, forthe purpos e onl yof c o v e ri n g u p a f

te r t h e c ri m e .” Pec ora , 7 98 F. 2d at630 ( quot i ng G r unew ald v. U ni t ed Stat es , 353 U
. S. 391, 405 ( 1957) )
. W e co n clud ed thatt he r ecor ded
conver s at i ons i n P ecora w e re a d m iss ib le a g a in st th e d e f e n d a n ts becau s e “ c o n c e a l m entof the exi s t ence of the cons pi r acyenabl ed t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o c o n t i n u e t h e i ri l l e g a l p a y o f f s c h e me f

o rt wo22 m o re y e a rs . . .”
. P ecora , 798 F. 2d at631. A s q u o ted e a rlier , h e re A li t o ld R a so o l: I ju st d o n ’t w a n t to d o a n yth in g rig h t n o w w ith Say eeda and them an d j eopar di ze w hatw e got w i t h t he col l ege, y ou know
. C aus e y ou know t hey b e the o n e’s to b e c all ing an d say ing theyain’t nobodyt her e at t hi s t i m e go chec k t he, y ou know w h a t, I k n o w th e y ’d d o th a t. A p p . 1 3 4 -3 7 . T h u s, A li i s c a u tio n in g R a so o l n o t to u p s e t a tea c h e r a t th e S c h o o l (“ S a y e e d a ” ) b e c a u se th a t te a c h e r m ig h t tell C C P ( “the col l ege” ) t hatt her e ar e no A B E cl as s es bei ng t aught
a t th e S c h o o l (“ a in ’t n o b o d yth e re a t th is tim e ” ). A li i s obvi ous l y conce r ned t hat i f t hey ups et or anger Say eeda i n any
w a y , S a y e e d a m ig h t re p o rt th e f a c t th a t th e S c h o o l is e m p ty
w hen A B E cl as s es s houl d have been i n s es s i on, t hus r evea l i ng t he “no show ” sche m e. Si nce i t i s cl ear t hat t he purpos e behi nd th e s e s ta te m e n ts w a s to c o n c e a l th a t sc h e m e so th a t itc o u ld
c o n tin u e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e yw e re m a d e in f u rth e ra n c e o f

it. M or eover , o u r co n clus ion that A li ’s st at ement s t o conce al t he cons pi r acy w er e i n fur t her ance of i t i s notunderm i ned byt he fac tt hatt he di s t r i ctcour tfai l ed t o h o ld an evi dent i aryhear i ng23 on W eave r ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne . E v e n if R a so o l w a s n o t a
me mb e ro f t he c o n s p i r a c y , Al i ’ s e f f o r t s t o c o n c e a l t h e s c h e me
w e r e c l e a r l y i nt ended to f u rt h e r i t. See Reye s , 798 F. 2d at384. A s w e h av e e x p lai n ed , stat em en ts m ad e t o inf o rm o thers of the s t atus of a c ons pi r acyonl yfu rt h er the cons pi r acyi f the
a d d r e s s e e s a r e a l s o i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e s t a tu s o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y. S e e A m m ar , F .2 d a t 2 5 2 ; s ee al s o G i bbs , 739 F. 2d at846. C onver s el y , s t at ement s m ade f ort he purpos e of c oncea l i ng a
cons pi r acycan f

ur t hert he cons pi r acyr egar dl es s of w hethert he addr es s ee i s a co- cons pi r at or . A l t hough j ur or s m ay noti nt erpr et t hi s s t at ementas an eff

or tt o conce al m ent , t he governm enthas
a t lea st s a tisf

ied th e “ in f

u rth e ra n c e ” re q u ire m e n t o f R u le 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) and i s t her efor e ent i t l ed t o have t he j ur ycons i der t hi s por t i on of the Sept ember4 conver s at i on. T h u s, W ea v er’s att em p t t o d ef ine th e S e p tem b er 4
conver s at i on as m er el ybei ng A l i ’ s “compl ai nt s ” aboutW eave r is n o t p e rsu a siv e . A p p e llee ’s B r. at 9 . W e a v e r a tt e m p ts to b u ttr es s t hi s ar gum entbyr el y i ng on t he r eas oni ng i n U ni t ed24 Stat es v. Li cau si , 1 6 7 F .3 d 3 6 (1 s t C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). L ica u si i nvol ved
a cons pi r acy to r ob s ever al s uperm arket s and conve ni ence
s t or es . O ne of the def

endant s , J ohn L i caus i , arg u ed o n appea l th a t the d istri ct co u rth ad erred in ad m itti n g o u t- o f-c o u rt
s t at ement s of one of

hi s co- cons pi r at or s , B ern ie S u b o cz, t o a f e m a le a c q u a in tan c e , L o ri M u n ro e , b e c a u s e th e yw e re n o t in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

th e c o n s p ir a c y . Id
. at50. Subocz had r etur ned fr om a cr i m e spr ee i n O hi o w hen he t ol d M onr oe abouts ever al rob b eri es he and hi s cr ew had att em p ted th at h ad b ee n b o tche d fo r v ariou s rea so n s. T h e c o u rt
a g re e d w i t h L i causi t hat the st at em ents w ere i nad m i ssi ble beca us e “[ a] l l butone w er e m ade aft ert he cr i m es t heydes cr i bed t ook pl ace , and theydo notappea rt o have y i el ded s i gni fi cant
en ough i nform at i on t o cons t i tut e r epor t s t o a coc ons pi r ator,
as s um i ng M unr oe coul d be cons i der ed as s uch. ” Id
. T h e c o u rt al s o concl uded thatt he s t at ement s “appe ar[ed ] .
. . t o be i ns t ance s w her e Subocz w as “mer el ybl ow ing off s t eam or
v e n tin g a n x iety ” o r s im p lya v o id in g a n a rg u m e n t w ith h is25 gi r l fr i end. H ere , ev en if w e w ere to co n ce d e tha t som e o f A li ’s sta tem e n ts d u rin g th e S e p tem b e r 4 c o n v e rsa tio n c a n b e f a irly
c h a ra c te ri z e d a s “ m e re ly b lo w in g o f f s te a m o r v e n tin g a n x ie ty,” t he b ulk of h er s t at em ents are quali t at i vely differ ent than t ho se i n L ic a u s i. A l l butone of the s t at ement s i n L i cau siw er e made aft ert he cr i m es w er e comm i t t ed, and w er e obvi ous l ynot i n t e n d e d t o c o n c e a l p r o s p e c t i v e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y. A c c o r d i n g l y, th e s ta te m e n ts w e re n o t in f u rt h e ra n c e o f

a c o n s p ir a c y . See i d. C o n v e rse ly , as w e h a v e e x p lain e d , A li’s sta tem e n t to R a so ol con cerned the need t o proceed w i t h caut i on i n order to pr eventr evel at i on of the s cheme t hatw ould resul tfr om t he di s coveryof empt ycl as s r oom s and r equi r e an e xpl anat i on of h o w th e p ro c e e d s w e re b e in g u s e d
.

D . A dm issi bil i t

y of Ra sool’s St atem ents T he governm e n tap p e a r s p r i ma r i l yi n t e r es t ed i n admi t t i ng A l i ’ s s t at ement s dur i ng t he Sept ember4 co n v ers at i on. H o w ev er, i f th e g o v e rn m en t i n tend s to introd u ce R aso o l’ s26 s t at ement s agai ns tW eave runder t he co- cons pi r at orexce pt i on, i tm us tes t abl i s h by a pr eponder ance of t he evi dence t hatR as ool
w as al s o a conspi r at or . A s w e have not ed, t he governm entnever had a c hance t o es t abl i s h R as ool ’ s m ember s hi p i n t he
c o n s p i r a c y. O f

c o u rse , in a d d iti o n to e sta b lish in g R a so o l’s ro le i n t h e c o n s p i r a c y , t h e g o v e r n me n tmus ta l s o s a t i s f yt h e o t her
re q u ir e m e n ts o f R u le 8 0 1 (d )( 2 )( E ). S e e E llis , 156 F. 3d at496. E . R el evanc e of

the Septem ber4 C onver s at i on T he distri ct co u rtalso ruled the S ep tem b er 4 conver s at i on i rreleva nt . Feder al R ul e of Evi dence 401 defi nes “r el evant evi dence ” as “e v iden ce ha vi ng anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of anyfac t t hati s of cons equenc e t o t he det erm i nat i on of the ac t i on m or e pro babl e orl es s pr obabl e than i tw oul d be
w ith o u t th e e v iden ce . ” F ed
. R . E v id. 40 1
. H e re , A li ’s
s t at ement s t o R as ool dur i ng t he Sept em ber4 conver s at i on confi r m es s en ti al el ement s of the cons pi r at or i al s cheme. Speci fi cal l y , A l i i nfor m ed R as ool t hats he w as depende nton W eave r for t he s cheme t o cont i nue and t hat W ea v er reques t ed27 half of t he S cho ol’ s proceeds from th e schem e. A l i al so i ns t ruct ed R as ool nott o ups etSay eeda and ther ebyj eopar di ze th e s c h e m e , a s w e h a v e ju s t e x p la in e d
. Iti s, of co urse, ult i m at el yfor the juryt o int erpr ett ho se
s t at ement s . . H ow ever , t hey ar e cert ai nl y r el evant t o t he cha r ges agai ns tW eave rbeca us e A l i ’ s s t at ement s t o R as ool t end t o m ake i tmo r e p r o b a b l e t h a n n o tt h a tW e a v e rk n e w a b o u tt h e s c h e me t o defr aud C C P a nd w as i nvol ved i n i t . A ccor di ngl y , t he di s t r i ct
c o u rt e rre d in f

in d in g th e S e p tem b e r 4 c o n v e rsa tio n irre lev a n t. In c o n c lu sio n , w e w ill re m a n d f o r th e d istric t co u rt to pr ovi de the governm entw i t h t he oppor tuni tyt o p r e s e ntevi dence i n s u p p o r t o f i t s a l l e g a t i o n t h a tR a s o o l w a s a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r . We
r ecogni ze that“the contr ol of the or derof pr oof at tri al [for
a d mi s s i o n o f

s t a t e me n t s u n d e rRul e 8 0 1 ( d ) ( 2 ) ( E) ] i s a mat t er
comm i t t ed t o t he di s cr et i on of the tr i al j udge, ” A m m ar , 714 F. 2d at246, and l eave i t t o t he cour t t o deci de w hether t o: ( 1) conduct a pr etr i al evi dent i aryhear i ng on W eave r ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne ; or (2 ) c o n d iti o n a lly a d m it th e c h a llen g e d c o n v e rsa tio n “ su b jec t to28 th e re q u ire m e n t th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t m a k e [ its R u le 801( d) ( 2) ( E ) ] s how i ng byt he cl os e of i t s cas e, ” i d. a t 2 4 7 . See id . (n o tin g th a t th e la tte r p ro c e d u re sh o u ld b e “ c a re f u lly
cons i der ed and s par i ngl y ut i l i zed”) ( quot i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Con t i n e n ta lGr o u

p , I nc. , 6 0 3 F . 2 d 4 4 4 , 4 5 7 (3d C ir
. 1 9 7 9 )). A ft er hear i ng t he r el evantevi dence , w hetherata pr etr i al hear i ng
o r d u r in g th e trial, th e d istric t co u rt w ill th e n b e a b le to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e rt h e g o v e r n m e n th a s p r o v e n b y a p rep o n d era n ce o f th e e v iden ce that the p o rt ion o f A li ’s
s t at eme n ts t o R as ool i nfor m i ng herof the s t atus of the
co n sp ir ac yare ad m issi b le un d er R u le 80 1 (d)(2 )(E ). I f the evi dence s how s t hatR as ool w as , as t he governm ent cl ai m s , a co- cons pi r at ori n t he char ged cons pi r acy , t hatpor t i on
o f th e c o n v e rsa tio n w o u ld b e a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 801( d) ( 2) ( E )
. I f, on t he otherhand, t he evide nce s how s t hat R as ool had no inv o l vementi n t he cha r ged cons pi r acy , t he di s t r i ctcour t s houl d gr antW eave r ’ s m ot i on w i t h r es pectt o t hat por t i on of the conversa ti on onl y . H ow ever , r egar dl es s of the29 di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi n d i n g s i n r es pectt o R as ool ’ s i nvol vementi n t he
cons pi r acy , A l i ’ s s t at ement s t o R as ool r egar d i ng Say eeda and
c o n c e a lin g th e c o n sp ira c y a re a d m iss ib le u n d e r R u le 8 0 1 (d)(2 )(E ). III . Fort he r eas ons s t at ed above , w e w i l l vaca t e the di s t r i ct
cour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng W eave r ’ s m ot i on i n l i m i ne and r emand forfurt herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.