Opinion ID: 1434534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements Concealing the Conspiracy

Text: In United States v. Pecora, 798 F.2d 614 (3d Cir.1986), defendants challenged the admission of a recorded telephone conversation among several unindicted co-conspirators. Their challenge included the argument that the conversations were not in furtherance of the no-show scheme at issue there. Id. at 630. The conversations consisted of statements trying to get their stories straight about what their jobs entailed in anticipation of a government investigation. Id. at 625. Defendants argued that the conversations were inadmissible because their purpose was to conceal the declarants' participation in the conspiracy at a time when the declarants were no longer conspirators, having terminated their involvement. Id. at 630. We rejected that argument explaining: [i]f the acts of concealment amount to nothing more than (1) a criminal conspiracy which is carried out in secrecy; (2) a continuation of the secrecy after the accomplishment of the crime; and (3) desperate attempts to cover up after the crime begins to come to light then declarations made during an agreement to conceal are indeed not made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. (citation and quotation omitted). However, we recognized in Pecora that the Supreme Court has cautioned: [b]y no means does this mean that acts of concealment can never have significance in furthering a criminal conspiracy. But a vital distinction must be made between acts of concealment done in furtherance of the main criminal objectives of the conspiracy, and acts of concealment done after these central objectives have been attained, for the purpose only of covering up after the crime. Pecora, 798 F.2d at 630 (quoting Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 405, 77 S.Ct. 963, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957)). We concluded that the recorded conversations in Pecora were admissible against the defendants because concealment of the existence of the conspiracy enabled the defendants to continue their illegal payoff scheme for two more years . . .. Pecora, 798 F.2d at 631. As quoted earlier, here Ali told Rasool: I just don't want to do anything right now with Sayeeda and them and jeopardize what we got with the college, you know. Cause you know they be the one's to be calling and saying they ain't nobody there at this time go check the, you know what, I know they'd do that. App. 134-37. Thus, Ali is cautioning Rasool not to upset a teacher at the School (Sayeeda) because that teacher might tell CCP (the college) that there are no ABE classes being taught at the School (ain't nobody there at this time). Ali is obviously concerned that if they upset or anger Sayeeda in any way, Sayeeda might report the fact that the School is empty when ABE classes should have been in session, thus revealing the no show scheme. Since it is clear that the purpose behind these statements was to conceal that scheme so that it could continue, we conclude that they were made in furtherance of it. Moreover, our conclusion that Ali's statements to conceal the conspiracy were in furtherance of it is not undermined by the fact that the district court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing on Weaver's motion in limine. Even if Rasool was not a member of the conspiracy, Ali's efforts to conceal the scheme were clearly intended to further it. See Reyes, 798 F.2d at 384. As we have explained, statements made to inform others of the status of a conspiracy only further the conspiracy if the addressees are also interested in the status of the conspiracy. See Ammar, 714 F.2d at 252; see also Gibbs, 739 F.2d at 846. Conversely, statements made for the purpose of concealing a conspiracy can further the conspiracy regardless of whether the addressee is a co-conspirator. Although jurors may not interpret this statement as an effort to concealment, the government has at least satisfied the in furtherance requirement of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and is therefore entitled to have the jury consider this portion of the September 4 conversation. Thus, Weaver's attempt to define the September 4 conversation as merely being Ali's complaints about Weaver is not persuasive. Appellee's Br. at 9. Weaver attempts to buttress this argument by relying on the reasoning in United States v. LiCausi, 167 F.3d 36 (1st Cir.1999). LiCausi involved a conspiracy to rob several supermarkets and convenience stores. One of the defendants, John LiCausi, argued on appeal that the district court had erred in admitting out-of-court statements of one of his co-conspirators, Bernie Subocz, to a female acquaintance, Lori Munroe, because they were not in furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. at 50. Subocz had returned from a crime spree in Ohio when he told Munroe about several robberies he and his crew had attempted that had been botched for various reasons. The court agreed with LiCausi that the statements were inadmissible because [a]ll but one were made after the crimes they described took place, and they do not appear to have yielded significant enough information to constitute reports to a coconspirator, assuming Munroe could be considered as such. Id. The court also concluded that the statements appear[ed] . . . to be instances where Subocz was `merely blowing off steam or venting anxiety' or simply avoiding an argument with his girlfriend. Here, even if we were to concede that some of Ali's statements during the September 4 conversation can be fairly characterized as merely blowing off steam or venting anxiety, the bulk of her statements are qualitatively different than those in LiCausi. All but one of the statements in LiCausi were made after the crimes were committed, and were obviously not intended to conceal prospective criminal activity. Accordingly, the statements were not in furtherance of a conspiracy. See id. Conversely, as we have explained, Ali's statement to Rasool concerned the need to proceed with caution in order to prevent revelation of the scheme that would result from the discovery of empty classrooms and require an explanation of how the proceeds were being used.