Opinion ID: 3012363
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statements In Furtherance Of Conspiracy

Text: Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) Vega argues that the District Court clearly erred when it admitted into evidence (1) the spiral notebooks received from Arocha, and (2) conversations intercepted by Special Agent Velez on Vega’s cellular phone, as statements in furtherance of conspiracy under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The District Court was required to make the following findings before admitting evidence under that Rule: (1) a conspiracy existed; (2) the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered were members of the conspiracy; (3) the statement was made in the course of the conspiracy; and (4) it was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Ellis, 156 F.3d 493, 496 (3d Cir. 1998); United States v. McGlory, 968 F.2d 309, 333 (3d Cir. 1992) (citing Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)). These findings must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and are reviewed for clear error. Ellis , 156 F.3d at 496. Vega argues that the District Court improperly admitted the spiral notebooks and the cellular phone 12 conversations because there was insufficient evidence demonstrating the existence of drug conspiracies in 1997 and 1999, respectively. When determining whether there is sufficient evidence of a conspiracy’s existence, the District Court should consider the independent evidence in the record combined with the hearsay statements themselves. Rule 801(d)(2) provides that [t]he contents of the statement shall be considered but are not alone sufficient to establish . . . the existence of the conspiracy and the participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered. . . . Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2). An Advisory Committee Note further explains that the District Court must consider in addition the circumstances surrounding the statement, such as the identity of the speaker, the context in which the statement was made, or evidence corroborating the contents of the statement in making its determination as to each preliminary question. Fed. R. Evid. 801 advisory committee’s note, 1997 amendment. Vega’s name and nickname, along with the names of Maria Arocha, Harol Carbajal, and Jose Hernandez, appeared in the spiral notebooks taken from Arocha’s apartment in 1997. In addition, the Government presented the following independent evidence of a 1997 conspiracy. Arocha told the officers that there was a conspiracy, that she was part of it, and that the spiral notebooks contained records kept by her. Also among the papers provided by Arocha was a bill of sale for a green Honda signed by Vega and made out to Jose Hernandez. Moreover, Vega drove Arocha from the location where she picked up the drug package to her apartment in a green Honda. We cannot say that the District Court clearly erred in finding that this evidence demonstrated the existence of a conspiracy in 1997. The record also contains evidence sufficient to support the Court’s finding that a conspiracy existed in 1999. Miranda had a piece of paper with the name Jairo on it when she was first detained entering the United States from Colombia. The telephone calls Miranda then made to Jairo provided the link that there was a conspiracy between them. Jairo gave Miranda a phone number through which 13 she communicated with Vega and made plans to meet him. When Vega was arrested he had a piece of paper in his pocket with the phrase, on behalf of Jairo, Miranda’s pager number, and the number 142, which corresponded to the number of drug pellets she was carrying. Vega did not question Miranda when she asked to be paid and mentioned Colombia. Vega had a money transfer order in his car made out to Harold Carbajal, and the names Jairo and Harold were used interchangeably when Miranda made recorded phone calls in an attempt to reach Jairo in Colombia. In short, we believe there was sufficient evidence to support the existence of both the 1997 and 1999 conspiracies. We therefore affirm the Court’s decision to admit the spiral notebooks and cellular phone conversations into evidence under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as statements in furtherance of the 1997 and 1999 conspiracies, respectively.