Opinion ID: 434960
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Conspiracy Evidence

Text: 16 Harenberg next argues that the district court made various errors in admitting evidence relating to conspiracy. His primary contention is that the trial judge erroneously admitted hearsay evidence relating to the conspiracy under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) 5 without having made an initial finding based upon independent evidence that a conspiracy existed and that the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. 17 Harenberg relies upon our decision in United States v. Petersen, 611 F.2d 1313 (10th Cir.1979). We find this reliance misplaced. In Petersen, we adopted the procedures for admitting such evidence set forth in United States v. James, 590 F.2d 575 (5th Cir.1979). The procedures provide that it is preferable, whenever possible, to require the Government to first introduce independent proof of the conspiracy ... before admitting hearsay declarations of co-conspirators. United States v. Petersen, supra at 1330 (emphasis added). Where this procedure is not reasonably practicable, however, we recognized that the court may admit the statements provisionally, subject to being connected up by subsequent independent evidence. Id. 18 The record clearly shows that the trial judge understood and attempted to follow the procedures expressed in Petersen. He was plainly aware of the Petersen preferred procedure and abandoned this course only after having discussed the issue with counsel for both parties. The government argued that the preferred method could not be followed in this case because the trials of the alleged conspirators were severed, leaving each trial with two absent conspirators and consequent order-of-proof problems. The order of proof is within the discretion of the trial judge. United States v. Kaatz, 705 F.2d 1237, 1244 (10th Cir.1983). We cannot say that, under these circumstances, the judge abused his discretion by concluding that Petersen's preferred procedure need not be followed. Neither can we find error in his subsequent finding that the government successfully connected up the conspiracy with sufficient independent evidence.