Opinion ID: 415488
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims of Mont.

Text: 38 Mont argues that the court below erroneously admitted a hearsay statement implicating him in the distribution of heroin. Finding this claim without merit, we affirm Mont's conviction on all counts. 39 During his testimony, Agent Baker recounted a conversation he had in Atlanta with an individual named Sam. Baker met Sam at Guy Wilkins' suggestion and used the occasion to identify sources of heroin. Sam indicated that he did not deal in heroin but made two telephone calls in an unsuccessful attempt to locate a source. Sam then asked, Why don't you go to Lam? 18 Baker inquired, Who is Lam? Is he the owner of the Our Place Bar?  Sam replied, Yes, he is probably doing the largest amount of heroin in Manhattan. Sam said he would go to New York and, if Baker had difficulty meeting Lam, he, Sam, would introduce them. Mont contends that these statements were inadmissible because Sam's membership in the conspiracy was not independently established and because the statements were not within any exception to the rule against hearsay. See, Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E); United States v. Geaney, supra, 417 F.2d at 1120. The government responds that Mont failed to preserve this issue for appellate review and argues further that Sam's statements were admissible as statements of a co-conspirator, as verbal acts, and as an aid to the jury's understanding of background events leading to the agents' investigation of Mont. Finally, the government argues harmless error. We conclude that if it were error to admit these statements, it was harmless because (1) the jury already had twice heard the substance of Sam's remarks, and (2) there was substantial additional evidence of Mont's guilt. 40 There was earlier evidence that when Agent Baker purchased heroin from Guy Wilkins on July 18, 1980, Wilkins indicated that his source was the owner of the Our Place Bar 19 and that the owner would soon receive part of a two-hundred pound shipment of heroin. 41 Similarly, there was earlier testimony that on September 9, 1980, when Agents Baker and Coleman gave Guy Wilkins an ounce of quinine and Baker announced he wanted to trade quinine towards the cost of heroin, especially with the Our Place Bar source of supply, Wilkins replied that's possible, because that source was one of the largest dealers of heroin in Manhattan and would probably need the quinine. Baker asked whether that source had received part of the two-hundred pound shipment of heroin, and Wilkins answered that it had not. 42 In short, Sam's statements merely corroborated what Wilkins, a member of the conspiracy well acquainted with Mont, had already said. Since the statements of Wilkins were admitted as statements of a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, it is unlikely that those of Sam were significant factors in the jury's decision. Our conclusion that the error, if any, was harmless is reinforced by the fact that the evidence of Mont's guilt is compelling, as noted above. 20 43