Opinion ID: 3001229
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Hicks-Veal Recordings

Text: Hargrove claims the Hicks-Veal recordings are inadmissible under Crawford, which held that the ConfrontaNo. 05-4376 5 tion Clause bars the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” 541 U.S. at 53-54. Hargrove’s reliance on Crawford is misplaced; we have previously held that Crawford did not affect the admissibility of coconspirator statements. United States v. Tolliver, 454 F.3d 660, 665 (2006); United States v. Jenkins, 419 F.3d 614, 618 (7th Cir. 2005). This conclusion is shared by our sister circuits. E.g., United States v. Bridgeforth, 441 F.3d 864, 869 n.1 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Martinez, 430 F.3d 317, 329 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v. Delgado, 401 F.3d 290, 299 (5th Cir. 2005); United States v. Hendricks, 395 F.3d 173, 183-84 (3d Cir. 2005); United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 224-25 (2d Cir. 2004). Crawford addressed the Confrontation Clause limitations on the admission of testimonial hearsay, but the coconspirator statements made by Hicks are neither hearsay nor “testimonial” as the Supreme Court has defined that term in Davis. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59; Davis, 126 S. Ct. at 2275. Accordingly, they need not satisfy the Confrontation Clause requirements identified in Crawford in order to be admissible. See FED. R. EVID. 801(d) (classifying coconspirator statements as nonhearsay “[a]dmissions by a party opponent”); Davis, 126 S. Ct. at 2275 (noting that “statements made unwittingly to a Government informant” are nontestimonial) (citation omitted). Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) the statements of coconspirators made “during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy” are considered admissions by a party opponent and are not hearsay. The use of this sort of evidence does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182 (1987); United States v. 6 No. 05-4376 Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097, 1107-08 (7th Cir. 1997). Despite Hargrove’s suggestion to the contrary, Crawford and Davis did not undermine Bourjaily. See United States v. Carson, 455 F.3d 336, 365 n.25 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Saget, 377 F.3d at 229. In both Crawford and Davis, the Supreme Court specifically cited Bourjaily—which as here involved a coconspirator’s statements made to a government informant—to illustrate a category of nontestimonial statements that falls outside the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. See Davis, 126 S. Ct. at 2275; Crawford, 541 U.S. at 58. Hargrove argues in the alternative that Hicks’s recorded statements were inadmissible because Hargrove had already withdrawn from the conspiracy when Hicks made them; that is, he claims Hicks’s statements were not made “during the course” of a conspiracy between Hicks and Hargrove. FED. R. EVID. 801(d)(2)(E). Hargrove forfeited this objection by failing to raise it below, so our review is for plain error. United States v. Jaimes-Jaimes, 406 F.3d 845, 847 (7th Cir. 2005). There was no error. Before trial the government submitted an extensive proffer in support of the admissibility of the Hicks-Veal recordings. This and other evidence adduced at trial easily supported the conclusion that Hicks and Hargrove were part of a conspiracy to rob and extort drug dealers in the Chicago area from the early 1990s until February 2001. That Hargrove retired in March 2000 and moved to Las Vegas does not by itself mean he withdrew from the conspiracy. Inactivity alone does not constitute withdrawal; to withdraw from a conspiracy, the defendant must “terminate completely his active involvement in the conspiracy, as well as take affirmative steps to defeat or disavow the conspiracy’s purpose.” United States v. Wilson, 134 F.3d 855, 863 (7th Cir. 1998); United States v. Williams, 81 F.3d 1434, 1442 (7th Cir. 1996). No. 05-4376 7 There is no evidence that Hargrove disavowed or took steps to defeat the conspiracy simply by moving west. To the contrary, there is evidence of frequent postretirement phone calls between Hargrove and Hicks, and a mention in one of the Hicks-Veal recordings that Hargrove was still getting a cut of the take after his move to Las Vegas. Accordingly, the admission of the Hicks-Veal recordings as statements of a coconspirator during the course of the conspiracy was not error.1