Opinion ID: 7265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admission of Hearsay Evidence under FRE 801(d)(2)(e)

Text: 42 Massey also argues that the admission of the testimony of the government's witness, Hillhouse, recounting statements made by West regarding Massey's involvement in the conspiracy without the benefit of a hearing to determine the existence of the conspiracy, was an abuse of discretion. Massey concedes that West's out-of-court statements to Hillhouse are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), 40 but argues that he was entitled to a hearing to determine the existence of the conspiracy under Bourjaily v. United States. 41 43 In United States v. Fragoso, 42 this Court rejected a similar argument and, in response to the defendant's argument that Bourjaily required a hearing, stated [w]e think this argument erroneously transforms a descriptive portion of the Court's opinion in Bourjaily into a mandatory procedure. Bourjaily did not purport to address the procedure for proving the admissibility of a co[-]conspirator statements. 43 Thus, contrary to Massey's argument, no hearing is required and the district court was free to allow admission of the testimony before making its determination of whether the testimony fit within Rule 801(d)(2)(E). 44 And, although the district court did not make specific findings regarding the existence of the conspiracy, [i]n denying the defendant's motion for directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the trial, the court implicitly found the evidence sufficient to establish a conspiracy. 45 Thus, we affirm.