Opinion ID: 1456526
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The district court's erroneous admission of two co-conspirator statements was harmless

Text: While this Court has held that [t]he erroneous admission of a statement by an unindicted co-conspirator constitutes harmless error when sufficient other evidence demonstrates a defendant's active involvement in the conspiracy, United States v. Young, 553 F.3d 1035, 1047 (6th Cir.2009), this definition is imprecise. As the Supreme Court has held, [i]f one cannot say, with fair assurance, ... that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error, it is impossible to conclude that substantial rights were not affected. Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946); see also United States v. Rayborn, 491 F.3d 513, 518 (6th Cir.2007) (`The harmless[-]error standard calls for reversal when the appellate court lacks a fair assurance that the outcome of the trial was not affected by evidentiary error.') (quoting McCombs v. Meijer, Inc., 395 F.3d 346, 358 (6th Cir.2005)). The harmless-error test is highly sensitive to the unique context of the particular case, including the one-sided or closely balanced nature of the evidence bearing upon the issue which the error arguably affected ... and the centrality of that issue to the ultimate decision.... Schrand v. Fed. Pac. Elec. Co., 851 F.2d 152, 157 (6th Cir.1988) (holding that error was not harmless in a close case where the inadmissible testimony was arguably the strongest evidence at trial weighing in plaintiff's favor) (internal citations omitted); see also United States v. Pugh, 405 F.3d 390, 401 (6th Cir.2005) (In determining whether an error is harmless, the reviewing court must take account of what the error meant to the jury, not singled out and standing alone, but in relation to all else that happened.) (internal citations omitted). Warman argues that the erroneous admission of statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) prejudiced him and denied him a fair trial. Because of the importance of co-conspirator testimony to the instant case, that might have been true if all of the challenged statements were inadmissible, rather than just two of them. Because the other statements by Dilts and Walters about Warman's trips to Florida with Hannum and Hannum's professed intent to turn his cocaine business over to Warman were admissible, and because significant circumstantial evidence showed that Warman had a close relationship with key Outlaws involved in the conspiracy, we can say with fair assurance that the jury's verdict was not substantially swayed by the erroneously admitted statements.