Opinion ID: 661707
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Coconspirators' Statements Regarding Loansharking

Text: 12 Amato challenges two items of loansharking evidence as inadmissible hearsay: (1) the testimony of Ambrosino, an Amato crew member, that Donofrio told him that: Amato loaned Donofrio $20,000 in June 1991 at the rate of one percent per week, and Donofrio made two payments to Amato before suspending payments as a result of the Colombo family internal dispute; and (2) Ocera's loansharking records, conceded by Amato to be authentic, that were seized from the Manor by the Suffolk County police. We affirm the trial court's rulings that this evidence was not hearsay and was admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) as the statements of coconspirators. 13 To admit a coconspirator's statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the trial court must first find by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was made by a coconspirator of the defendant during the course of the conspiracy and in furtherance of it. See United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1195-1196 (2d Cir.1993). The trial court's preliminary factual findings under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 959 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2811, 115 L.Ed.2d 984 (1991). At issue is whether a preponderance of the evidence established that Donofrio and Ocera were participants with Amato in the Colombo family loansharking conspiracy, and if so, whether their statements and records implicating Amato were made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. As to Amato's membership in the conspiracy, this standard was met by evidence that loansharking was a principal activity of the Colombo family and that Amato was a captain in the family hierarchy. 14 As to Donofrio, Ambrosino testified that Donofrio engaged in loansharking. The evidence supported an inference that Amato, as Donofrio's captain and supervisor, was aware of Donofrio's loansharking activities, and that these activities were part of the Colombo family loansharking conspiracy. It was not clear error for the trial court to find that the conspiracy was continuing at the time Donofrio told Ambrosino about the $20,000 loan even though, at some point prior to this statement, Donofrio had abandoned Amato's crew and joined forces with an opposing faction in the Colombo family internal dispute. Rivalry and dissension, however violent, do not necessarily signify dissolution of a conspiracy. An internal dispute among members of a conspiracy can itself be compelling evidence that the conspiracy is ongoing and that the rivals are members of it. See United States v. Aracri, 968 F.2d 1512, 1522 (2d Cir.1992) (acrimony among coconspirators did not negate finding of single conspiracy); United States v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535, 563 (2d Cir.1988) (competitive relationship of members of RICO conspiracy did not negate single conspiracy, but was evidence of participation in conspiracy), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 1637, 104 L.Ed.2d 153 (1989). 15 The evidence also supported a finding that Donofrio's statement to Ambrosino was made in furtherance of the conspiracy because the statement apprised another member of the conspiracy of the status of a particular loan. [S]tatements between coconspirators that may be found to be in furtherance of the conspiracy include statements that ... inform each other as to the progress or status of the conspiracy. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 958-59. 16 As to Ocera, the evidence supported a finding that he was a loanshark, and that he engaged in this business as part of the Colombo family loansharking conspiracy. His records listed the names of Colombo family members and payment amounts. The manager of Ocera's restaurant testified to meetings between Ocera and members of the Colombo family, including Amato. After the datebook was seized by the Suffolk County police, Ocera made frantic efforts to retrieve it and he began to fear reprisals by Colombo family members. Testimony and recorded conversations established that Orena, acting boss of the Colombo family, ordered Ocera's murder in retaliation for loansharking misdeeds. Based on this evidence, it was not clear error to find that Ocera and Amato were coconspirators in the Colombo family loansharking conspiracy. Once the government established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a conspiracy in which both [the record keeper] and [the defendant] participated, ... it was entitled to introduce evidence of what any co-conspirator did in furtherance of the conspiracy, such as a record of [criminal] transactions, without showing more. United States v. Calbas, 821 F.2d 887, 893 (2d Cir.1987) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 937, 108 S.Ct. 1114, 99 L.Ed.2d 275 (1988); see United States v. Canieso, 470 F.2d 1224, 1233 (2d Cir.1972) (letter properly admitted against defendant as declaration of coconspirator where there was sufficient evidence, independent of the truth of [defendant's] letter alone, to prove [defendant's] participation in the conspiracy). 17 The evidence was also sufficient to find that Ocera's loansharking records were statements made in furtherance of the Colombo family conspiracy. It was a fair inference that the entries in Ocera's datebook were accounting records of loans, payments and vigorish--data necessary to monitor and conduct the loansharking operation. See Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 959 (in furtherance element satisfied by statements in communique that discuss use of robbery proceeds and provide reassurance as to the status and solvency of the conspiracy); United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1351 (7th Cir.) (calendars admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) because entries were made so that coconspirator could rely on them in carrying out his scheme), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979).