Opinion ID: 722587
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Western Union Documents

Text: 25 Gonzales and Lopez contend that the MTAs were hearsay and should not have been admitted into evidence. The district court's decision to admit evidence is reviewed only for abuse of discretion, and absent a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion, the district court's ruling will be affirmed. United States v. Johnson, 28 F.3d 1487, 1498 (8th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1098, 115 S.Ct. 768, 130 L.Ed.2d 664 (1995). 26 Under Rule 801(d)(2), certain statements are considered to be admissions by the party-opponent and thus do not constitute hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2). Such statements include admissions made by the party herself and those made by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. See id. 27 The MTAs can be broken down into two categories: (1) the MTAs for which the government presented handwriting evidence 5 identifying the sender, and (2) all the other MTAs. The first category of MTAs presents a straightforward admission by the party-opponent. Because the government established an adequate foundation, see Fed.R.Evid. 901(b)(1)-(3), upon which the jury could find that the documents were sent by one of the named defendants in this case, see id., the portion of the MTAs filled out by the defendants constitutes an admission by a party-opponent, and is not hearsay. 28 Although the government could not positively identify the senders of the MTAs in the second category, we conclude that these MTAs constitute admissions by party-opponents, because they were statements made by coconspirators. 6 To take advantage of this provision, the government must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a conspiracy existed, that the defendants and the declarant were members of the conspiracy, and that the declaration was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Helmel, 769 F.2d 1306, 1312 (8th Cir.1985). 7 The government submitted voluminous evidence tying all of these documents, even those sent by unidentified declarants, to the conspiracy, see Mem. in Opp'n to Defs.' Motion to Exclude Western Union Money Transfer Send Documents, reprinted in Appellee's Addendum, Ex. B, and thus the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting these documents.