Opinion ID: 2994090
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Co-Conspirator Exception to the

Text: Hearsay Rule During direct examination, government witness Gordon Hagenkord was asked about his duties in carrying on the drug business after supplier Michael Blake was arrested. As part of his response Hagenkord stated that when he started selling drugs for Blake, I took over the south side and J.J. [Johnson] had the north side. Johnson first contends that the district court erred in admitting this testimony. Johnson argues that this statement, J.J. had the north side, was inadmissible hearsay not covered by the co- conspirator exception because Blake’s statement was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy./2 We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to admit testimony while its factual findings are examined for clear error. United States v. Mojica, 185 F.3d 780, 788 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Petty, 132 F.3d 373, 379 (7th Cir. 1997). A statement is not considered to be hearsay if it is made by a co- conspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). To utilize the co-conspirator exception the government must show that: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the declarant and the defendant were both members of the conspiracy; and (3) the statements were made in the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Mojica, 185 F.3d at 788. Statements which further the conspiracy must be distinguished from mere idle chatter, narrative declarations, and superfluous casual remarks which do not further the conspiracy. United States v. Curry, 187 F.3d 762, 766 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Santos, 20 F.3d 280, 286 (7th Cir. 1994) (narrative discussions of past events were not statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy). Statements made in furtherance of a conspiracy can take a variety of forms. Some examples include comments designed to assist in recruiting potential members, to inform other members about the progress of the conspiracy, to control damage to or detection of the conspiracy, to hide the criminal objectives of the conspiracy, or to instill confidence and prevent the desertion of other members. United States v. Godinez, 110 F.3d 448, 454 (7th Cir. 1997); United States v. Stephenson, 53 F.3d 836, 845 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Brookins, 52 F.3d 615, 623 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Cox, 923 F.2d 519, 527 (7th Cir. 1991). Courts assess a statement’s ability to advance the conspiracy in the context in which the statement was made. United States v. Powers, 75 F.3d 335, 340 (7th Cir. 1996). The statement need not have been made exclusively, or even primarily, to further the conspiracy. Id. Rather, the record need only contain some reasonable basis for concluding that the statement in question furthered the conspiracy in some respect. Stephenson, 53 F.3d at 845; United States v. Marin, 7 F.3d 679, 690 (7th Cir. 1993). Here, Blake’s statement, J.J. had the north side, as repeated by Hagenkord, served several purposes. First the statement gave Hagenkord confidence in the confederacy through knowledge that others like Johnson were similarly willing to participate in the conspiracy. More importantly, the statement conveyed to Hagenkord the breadth of the conspiracy, its geographical divisions, and his role with respect to those divisions. Blake’s statement could have furthered the conspiracy by letting Hagenkord know that he was to concentrate on the south side of town while leaving the north side for Johnson. By precluding internecine competition, the conspiracy could more efficiently allocate its resources and thereby minimize waste. Thus, we have held that the in furtherance element is satisfied when the statement conveys information which helps conspirators perform their designated roles, as Blake’s comment did in this case. Godinez, 110 F.3d at 454. Similarly, by preventing the conspiracy from becoming a house divided against itself, Blake’s comment helped to prolong the conspiracy. Because Blake’s statement to Hagenkord furthered the goals of the conspiracy in several respects, the district court did not err in admitting this testimony under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).