Opinion ID: 6111678
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements by Ortiz

Text: Turning to Ortiz's statements, we reject Pena's contention that the prosecution failed to present evidence extrinsically corroborating that he and Ortiz were members of a drug selling conspiracy. Stated plainly, Pena's own recorded interactions with Ortiz -- admissible as opposing party statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A), see United States v. Ruiz, 999 F.3d 742, 748-49 (1st Cir. 2021) -- provided sufficient extrinsic evidence to corroborate that Ortiz uttered his challenged statements in furtherance of a conspiracy with Pena to sell cocaine base. According to Pena's own statements, he and - 20 - Ortiz met with R.E. on January 5 to transact a sale of two baskets of crack cocaine, which he presumably had on his person, in lieu of an originally arranged sixty-two. These statements corroborate the drug conspiracy actions of Ortiz, who drove Pena to the Malden parking garage meeting, communicated directly with Pena and R.E. -- a man the defense maintains Ortiz never previously met -- about Black (the purported source of supply per Pena's statements) being about his business, and declared that he would call Black to set up a second time and place to meet. Ortiz was also present in the hotel room on January 6 and saw Pena and R.E. go to the bathroom together to consummate the drug transaction negotiated the previous day. Though this extrinsic evidence is certainly not overwhelming, it is easily sufficient to withstand plain error review.