Opinion ID: 369136
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Evidence of Co-Conspirator McKillip's Statements

Text: 5 Defendant Inendino was accused in count one of conspiring with McKillip in the interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles, the receipt and concealment of stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce, and the interstate transportation of stolen property. Schremser, a witness for the Government, testified that, before the 1973 White tractor was stolen by himself and McKillip, McKillip told him that Jimmy (Inendino) was looking for a replacement for one of his tractors and that Jimmy would pay $500 for a replacement. Schremser also testified that when he and McKillip were locating a truck to steal, McKillip told him that they were finding a truck for Jimmy. The defendant claims, apparently, that these statements were hearsay deserving exclusion. Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that (a) statement is not hearsay if . . . a statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by a co-conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. We believe that some reasonable basis exists for concluding that both statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Mackey, 571 F.2d 376, 383 (7th Cir. 1978). See also United States v. Knippenberg, 502 F.2d 1056, 1061 (7th Cir. 1974). The district court properly admitted the evidence. 6