Opinion ID: 1434534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Relevance of the September 4 Conversation

Text: The district court also ruled the September 4 conversation irrelevant. Federal Rule of Evidence 401 defines relevant evidence as evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed.R.Evid. 401. Here, Ali's statements to Rasool during the September 4 conversation confirm essential elements of the conspiratorial scheme. Specifically, Ali informed Rasool that she was dependent on Weaver for the scheme to continue and that Weaver requested half of the School's proceeds from the scheme. Ali also instructed Rasool not to upset Sayeeda and thereby jeopardize the scheme, as we have just explained. It is, of course, ultimately for the jury to interpret those statements. However, they are certainly relevant to the charges against Weaver because Ali's statements to Rasool tend to make it more probable than not that Weaver knew about the scheme to defraud CCP and was involved in it. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding the September 4 conversation irrelevant. In conclusion, we will remand for the district court to provide the government with the opportunity to present evidence in support of its allegation that Rasool was a co-conspirator. We recognize that the control of the order of proof at trial [for admission of statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)] is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge, Ammar, 714 F.2d at 246, and leave it to the court to decide whether to: (1) conduct a pretrial evidentiary hearing on Weaver's motion in limine; or (2) conditionally admit the challenged conversation subject to the requirement that the government make [its Rule 801(d)(2)(E)] showing by the close of its case, id. at 247. See id. (noting that the latter procedure should be carefully considered and sparingly utilized) (quoting United States v. Continental Group, Inc., 603 F.2d 444, 457 (3d Cir.1979)). After hearing the relevant evidence, whether at a pretrial hearing or during the trial, the district court will then be able to determine whether the government has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the portion of Ali's statements to Rasool informing her of the status of the conspiracy are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). If the evidence shows that Rasool was, as the government claims, a co-conspirator in the charged conspiracy, that portion of the conversation would be admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). If, on the other hand, the evidence shows that Rasool had no involvement in the charged conspiracy, the district court should grant Weaver's motion with respect to that portion of the conversation only. However, regardless of the district court's findings in respect to Rasool's involvement in the conspiracy, Ali's statements to Rasool regarding Sayeeda and concealing the conspiracy are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).