Source: http://co.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180321_0000358.DCO.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 04:05:15+00:00

Document:
This matter comes before the Court on the Government's James Proffer [Docket No. 144] and the Government's Amended James Log and Memorandum Regarding the Nature and Scope of the Alleged Conspiracy [Docket No. 180]. The Court held James hearings on December 15, 2017 and January 4, 2018.
Statements by a conspirator are in furtherance of the conspiracy when they are “intended to promote the conspiratorial objectives.” United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267, 1273 (10th Cir. 2007), quoting United States v. Reyes, 798 F.2d 380, 384 (10th Cir. 1986). Promotion may occur through “statements that explain events of importance to the conspiracy in order to facilitate its operation, statements between coconspirators which provide reassurance, which serve to maintain trust and cohesiveness among them, or which inform each other of the current status of the conspiracy, and statements of a coconspirator identifying a fellow coconspirator.” Townley, 472 F.3d at 1273 (internal citations omitted). They may also include statements which identify the defendant as “a member of the conspiracy, and describ[e] his function in assisting the organization in avoiding detection by law enforcement.” United States v. Williamson, 53 F.3d 1500, 1520 (10th Cir. 1995). “A court may conclude that the statements are in furtherance of a conspiracy even though the statements are susceptible of alternative interpretations.” United States v. Marin, 7 F.3d 679, 690 (7th Cir. 1993). “[P]revious statements made by co-conspirators are admissible against a defendant who subsequently joins the conspiracy.” United States v. Brown, 943 F.2d 1246, 1255 (10th Cir. 1991).
“[I]n deciding whether the offering party has satisfied its burden at a James hearing, the district court has the discretion to consider any evidence not subject to a privilege, including both the coconspirator statements the government seeks to introduce at trial and any other hearsay evidence, whether or not that evidence would be admissible at trial.” United States v. Owens, 70 F.3d 1118, 1124 (10th Cir.1995). “The co-conspirator hearsay exception contains no requirement that the declarant be a defendant, only that she be a member of the conspiracy.” Champagne Metals v. Ken-Mac Metals, Inc., 458 F.3d 1073, 1081 n. 5 (10th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). “[T]here is no requirement that a district court make findings on the record before the nonhearsay is admitted. The court must only resolve the preliminary Rule 801 questions and ‘be satisfied that the statement actually falls within the definition of the Rule.'” United States v. Merrick, 299 F. App'x 820, 823 (10th Cir. 2008), quoting Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 185 (1987) (emphasis in original).
1. The government has shown that a conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud did exist and that such conspiracy operated between at least July 26, 2010, see, e.g., Document KB7.26.10, 2:56-5:27, and April 2011, when Mr. Elrod and defendant stopped communicating with one another.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.