Opinion ID: 3160112
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Testimony About Nelson’s Involvement in

Text: the Conference Calls “Reloading” Prior Investors Nelson asserts that the district court committed reversible error in admitting Stephanie Alarcon’s testimony about conference calls encouraging victims to reload. Alarcon testified not only about reloading conference calls she participated in, but also about conference calls Nelson participated in, even though she was not on those calls or in the room when they occurred. Her information came from what another telemarketer, Verna Capelli, then working as one of the closers, told her about conference calls that she UNITED STATES V. LLOYD 57 was on with Nelson and Slanaker. Nelson raised a hearsay objection at trial. We review the district court’s ruling for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Orm Hieng, 679 F.3d 1131, 1141 (9th Cir. 2012). Alarcon’s testimony about what Capelli told her is not hearsay if both Capelli and Alarcon were coconspirators of Nelson’s and the statement was offered against him. “A statement is not hearsay if . . . [t]he statement is offered against a party and is . . . a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 173 (1987); accord Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Nelson argues that Alarcon was not his coconspirator because after the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office were involved, “the case agent and prosecutors told Alarcon that she was not in trouble and did not have to worry about being arrested.” Nelson cites no authority for his argument, and our cases provide no support. “It is not necessary that the statement be made to another member of the conspiracy for it to come under [R]ule 801(d)(2)(E),” United States v. Williams, 989 F.2d 1061, 1068 (9th Cir. 1993), and “[a] coconspirator’s statement is admissible upon proof that it was made in furtherance of a conspiracy,” even if “the indictment does not contain a conspiracy count” against that coconspirator, United States v. Manning, 56 F.3d 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 1995). “The question is merely whether there was proof of a sufficient concert of action to show the individuals to have been engaged in a joint venture.” Manning, 56 F.3d at 1197. Both Capelli and Alarcon were working at Cinamour when Capelli took part in the calls with Nelson and described them to Alarcon. Both Alarcon and Capelli worked as fronters, and Capelli also worked as a closer. Their work as 58 UNITED STATES V. LLOYD fronters enabled closers, like Nelson, to get potential investors to sign and return the investment agreements to Cinamour with the checks. There is ample evidence that both Alarcon and Capelli were Nelson’s coconspirators when Capelli and Nelson took part in reloading conference calls and when Capelli told Alarcon about Nelson’s participation in the calls. The record also supports finding that Capelli’s statements kept Alarcon “abreast of an ongoing conspiracy’s activities” and were therefore made “in furtherance of” the conspiracy. See United States v. Yarbrough, 852 F.2d 1522, 1536 (9th Cir. 1988). For example, Capelli told Alarcon about the participants in, and the substance of, the conference calls in which she took part. Capelli explained the strategy behind the conference calls: to “get all the investors together” so that if one decided to invest, the others would be more likely to follow suit “because [of] their egos.” And Capelli warned Alarcon that she thought the calls were not “a good idea” and that if the FBI was recording them, the company would be shut down. Although “[m]ere conversations between coconspirators, or merely narrative declarations among them, are not made ‘in furtherance’ of a conspiracy,” the evidence is sufficient to find by a preponderance that Capelli’s statements “were made with the intent to keep [Alarcon] abreast of what [Cinamour] had done, was doing, or would do in the future.” See id. at 1535–36. The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Alarcon’s testimony about Nelson’s participation in reloading conference calls. UNITED STATES V. LLOYD 59