The prosecution has a broader choice regarding venue , i.e., the place of trial. Statements made by any member of the conspiracy can generally be admitted against all, without constraint from the hearsay rule. Any previous incriminating statement by any member of the conspiracy, if made in furtherance of the conspiracy, may be introduced into evidence against all of the conspirators . D1, D2 and D3 are charged with conspiracy to rob a bank. D1, the mastermind, tries to recruit X, an arms supplier, into the conspiracy, by telling X that D3 is also part of the conspiracy.
X refuses to join the conspiracy.
At the Ds' trial for conspiracy, X testifies as to D1's statements about D3's participation. This testimony will be admitted against D3 for the substantive purpose of showing that D3 was part of the conspiracy. This will be true even though the statement by D1 is hearsay as to D3. This means that the incriminating statement by a member of the alleged conspiracy may itself be considered in determining whether the conspiracy has been sufficiently documented that the hearsay should be admissible against the defendant. B pins V to the ground, while A takes his wallet.