Opinion ID: 25
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evelyn's Statements

Text: The district court allowed the introduction of two statements that Evelyn made, as recounted by Detective Robert Ahern, after C summoned her to the Cambridge hotel room. Ahern testified that, when Evelyn first entered the room, she looked at C--- and just told her to shut up. He also testified that Evelyn stated that C was her sister, that she was eighteen years old, that she drove her sister around to give massages, but that was it. The court admitted the statements over defendant's objection after the government argued that they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy and were thus admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), which provides an exception to the hearsay rule for co-conspirator statements made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy. On appeal, Diaz reasserts his contention that the statements were not admissible on that basis. Although he acknowledges that they were made during the conspiracy, he argues that they were not made in furtherance of the conspiracy's objectivethe sexual trafficking of minorsbecause the arrests of C and Evelyn already had foiled that objective. Diaz claims that the statements were made solely for the purpose of concealing the thwarted illegal agreement, and were therefore inadmissible. See Grunewald v. United States, 353 U.S. 391, 401-03, 77 S.Ct. 963, 1 L.Ed.2d 931 (1957); United States v. Serrano, 870 F.2d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir.1989). The government argues that Diaz failed to preserve this claim because he did not ask the district court to make a Petrozziello determination, see United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20 (1st Cir.1977), in which the court rules on whether it is more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members of a conspiracy and whether the challenged statement was in furtherance of that conspiracy. See Colón-Díaz, 521 F.3d at 36. Without such a request, and an objection to the court's ruling, review is only for plain error. Id. ; see also United States v. Avilés-Colón, 536 F.3d 1, 13-14 (1st Cir.2008) (noting that, to properly preserve an objection to the admission of evidence under the co-conspirator hearsay exception, a defendant must ordinarily object both when the hearsay statements are provisionally admitted and again at the close of all the evidence) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Diaz cannot show error, let alone plain error. He admits that the statements were made within the dates of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. The evidence allowed the district court to conclude that the conspiratorial conductinvolving minors in prostitution activity did not end with the arrests in Cambridge. Indeed, Diaz testified that he transported Lewis and P to the Boston hotel, at Evelyn's request, a month later. The district court could properly find that Evelyn's statement directing C to stop talking, as well as her statements about C's age and the services she was providing, were intended to prevent the law enforcement officers from putting her out of businessand thus to allow the conspiracy to continue operating. See, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez, 525 F.3d 85, 101 (1st Cir.2008) (holding that [a] statement is in furtherance of the conspiracy if it tends to advance the objects of the conspiracy as opposed to thwarting its purpose) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Fahey, 769 F.2d 829, 839 (1st Cir.1985) (holding that a statement fabricated to convince the [FBI] agent that the project should be allowed to continue . . . [is] made to further the object of the conspiracy). Nor do we find merit in Diaz's assertion, raised for the first time on appeal, that the statements should have been excluded because they were unfairly prejudicial. Evelyn's attempts to silence her sister and mislead the police officers were hardly shocking in the context of a case centered on the alleged sexual trafficking of minors. Diaz was not present when the statements were made, and the jurors would have no reason to associate him with the comments except insofar as other evidence showed that he was complicit in Evelyn's prostitution activities. Admission of the statements was not error. Affirmed.