Opinion ID: 4470975
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The “Georgian” Telephone Call

Text: Mykhaylo challenges the District Court’s admission of Yashuk’s testimony about the threatening telephone call she received from either Omelyan using a Georgian accent or someone else using such an accent. According to him, the testimony was inadmissible because the witness could not identify the speaker (and accordingly could not satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 901 (“Authenticating or Identifying Evidence”)), and, in the absence of such an identification (and a timeframe for the telephone call), it could not be determined whether the testimony was admissible as a statement of a co-conspirator made in furtherance (and during the existence) of the conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). However, the “Georgian” threat adequately demonstrated a conspiratorial connection between the declarant and Omelyan, and, by extension, with the other Botsvynyuk brothers. See, e.g., United States v. Cruz, 910 F.2d 1072, 1081-82 & n.10 (3d Cir. 1990) (indicating that statement of unidentified declarant suggesting conspiratorial connection between declarant and defendants was properly admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) where totality of circumstances suggested conspiratorial connection and that, although unidentifiability may be important, it was not particularly significant because statement and surrounding circumstances provided sufficient evidence of reliability). In his reply brief, Mykhaylo acknowledges that “[a] fair reading of the trial 11 record places this alleged call in the 2003 timeframe.” (Mykhaylo’s Reply Brief at 2 n.5)