Opinion ID: 363129
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: admissibility of coconspirator's hearsay statements

Text: 10 Appellant argues that the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay statements of a coconspirator before independent evidence of the conspiracy had been presented. In United States v. Apollo, 476 F.2d 156 (5th Cir. 1973) this Court set out the procedure to be followed regarding the admissibility of a coconspirator's hearsay statements. Apollo requires that the trial judge give a cautionary instruction on the limited use of the hearsay testimony explaining clearly to the jury that the conspiracy itself and each defendant's participation in it must be established by independent non-hearsay evidence, which must be given either prior to the introduction of any evidence or immediately upon the first instance of such hearsay testimony. 11 The trial judge gave the proper cautionary instruction to the jury that the hearsay statements could only be received conditionally until the conspiracy and Robinson's participation in it was proved by independent non-hearsay evidence. In our recent en banc decision of United States v. James,590 F.2d 575, (5th Cir. 1979), this Court revised the procedure which must now be followed regarding the admission of a coconspirator's hearsay statements. However, it is clear that James only applies prospectively to coconspirator statements which the government seeks to introduce at trial commencing after thirty days from the date of the James en banc opinion. 12 Since the trial judge correctly followed Apollo, we must determine whether there was sufficient non-hearsay evidence to establish the conspiracy and appellant's participation in it. The taped conversations between appellant and the agents contain ample independent non-hearsay evidence to establish this conspiracy and appellant's participation. In these conversations appellant refers to the manner of delivery of the merchandise which he insisted should be in several small quantities. Robinson states in the tape that if the agents are the police he doesn't want to lose everything by delivering the merchandise all at once. Appellant also refers to the last deal between the agents and himself as having been successful and relays his fear of being caught with all the contraband at one time. 13 The alleged hearsay testimony of the coconspirator was admissible because there was substantial independent non-hearsay evidence establishing the conspiracy. 1 It is clear that 14 Any and all statements of an accused person, so far as are not excluded by the doctrine of confessions or by the privilege against self-incrimination, are usable against the accused as admissions and are not hearsay. 15 United States v. Evans, 572 F.2d 455, 488 (5th Cir. 1978). See F.R.E. 801(d) (2)(A). 16 In United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) the Supreme Court discussed the admissibility of taped conversations and the objections that the taped conversations were out-of-court statements by declarants who would not be subject to cross-examination. The Supreme Court stated: 17 Here, however, most of the tapes apparently contain conversations to which one or more of the defendants named in the indictment were party. The hearsay rule does not automatically bar all out-of-court statements by a defendant in a criminal case. Declarations by one defendant may also be admissible against other defendants upon a sufficient showing, by independent evidence, of a conspiracy among one or more other defendants and the declarant and if the declarations at issue were in furtherance of that conspiracy. The same is true of declarations of coconspirators who are not defendants in the case on trial. 18 418 U.S. at 700-701, 94 S.Ct. at 3104 (citations omitted). 19 In this case, the reliability of the tape recording was not questioned and appellant stipulated that the voice in the tape which was not that of coconspirator Sullivan or that of agents Carr or Starratt was in fact his. The tape provided ample non-hearsay evidence of a conspiracy and the trial judge correctly followed Apollo regarding the admissibility of a coconspirator's hearsay statement. 20