Opinion ID: 349677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Trial and Evidentiary Errors.

Text: 22 As a second ground for reversal, Lambros contends that the trial judge committed seven errors during appellant's trial. 2 He then argues that these errors produced confusion on the part of the jury and led to inconsistent and compromised verdicts of acquittals on counts I, II, and III, and convictions on counts IV, V, and VII. 3 23 We have reviewed each of these alleged errors carefully and conclude that in each instance the trial court committed no error or, if error existed, that error produced no harm. 24 The jury verdicts themselves support this conclusion. Instead of evincing inconsistency, the acquittal on some counts reflected the ability of the jury to comprehend cautionary instructions given with reference to certain evidence and to convict only where untainted evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, it convicted appellant of distribution for the two transactions that took place on June 17, 1976, transactions for which the Government produced better and more direct evidence linking appellant with the sales made by Standish. 25 We do believe, however, that two of the errors alleged by appellant deserve more extended analysis and we discuss them separately. 26
27 As one error, appellant contends that the trial court should not have permitted agent Campion to testify as to conversations made by codefendant Standish that tended to implicate appellant Lambros in the distribution scheme. The trial court admitted the testimony on the theory that, although hearsay, it related statements by a coconspirator made in furtherance of the conspiracy and thus is admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). 28 Appellant disputes this ruling, suggesting that the requisite independent proof of the conspiracy did not exist and therefore that admission of the statements was wrong. The rule for admissibility of such evidence requires that the Government prove the existence of the conspiracy by evidence that is independent of the questioned statement. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 701, 94 S.Ct. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974); United States v. Frol, 518 F.2d 1134, 1136 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980, 984 (8th Cir. 1975). The independent evidence must establish that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the declarant and the defendant were members of the conspiracy, and (3) the statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Rich, supra, 518 F.2d at 984. In United States v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir. 1977), we discussed the necessary quantum of such independent evidence. 4 29 (T)he standard for the admissibility of co-conspirator statements requires the showing of a likelihood of illicit association between the declarant and the defendant. The trial judge determining admissibility preliminarily has wide discretion and must be satisfied only that there is independent evidence, credible and sufficient to support a finding of a joint undertaking. The independent evidence of illicit association may be completely circumstantial, or may consist of the conspirators' own conduct and admissions. (Id. at 1117.) 30 The trial court has discretion over the order of proof of the conspiracy. We stated in United States v. Jackson, 549 F.2d 517, 533 (8th Cir. 1977) that: 31 There is no requirement that the independent evidence of conspiracy be introduced prior to the introduction of the co-conspirator's statement. The order of proof is a matter left to the discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, the co-conspirator's statement may be conditionally admitted subject to being connected up subsequently by independent proof of conspiracy, which may be totally circumstantial. (Citations omitted.) 32 In this case, ample independent evidence of the conspiracy and appellant's connection with the conspiracy existed. The series of meetings between appellant and codefendant Standish before and after each heroin sale, appellant's arrest with marked money in his possession, and appellant's admission of complicity to his cellmate all conclusively establish the existence of the conspiracy and appellant's connection with it. 33 The third requirement, that the statements were made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, is also satisfied on this record. This court has repeatedly held that statements of a coconspirator identifying a fellow coconspirator as his source of narcotics are statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Carlson, supra, 547 F.2d at 1362; United States v. Hutchinson, 488 F.2d 484, 491 & n. 16 (8th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 2616, 41 L.Ed.2d 219 (1974). 34
35 James Hendrickson, appellant's cellmate in the Dakota County Jail, testified that while he and Lambros were incarcerated Lambros made the following statement: 36 Well, he mentioned that if I had boughten some heroin from Joe Standish it would have probably have been his. 37 At trial, defense counsel objected to the admission of this statement and was overruled. Later, counsel requested the judge to submit the following instruction, adapted from E. Devitt and C. Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice & Instructions § 15.06 (3d ed. 1977), which the trial judge refused:Evidence relating to any statement, claimed to have been made by the defendant outside of court, and after the defendant is incarcerated, should always be considered with caution and weighed with great care; and all such evidence should be disregarded entirely, unless the evidence in the case convinces the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that: 38 The defendant made the statement; and that the statement was made knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally. 39 Appellant now argues that both of the above rulings by the trial judge constituted error because (1) the statement should not have been admitted because of the absence of adequate corroboration and (2) that 18 U.S.C. § 3501(a) (1970), reproduced below, 5 required the reading of the requested instruction. 40 We find no merit in appellant's contention that the statement should not have been admitted. Substantial independent evidence corroborated it, including the surveillance accounts of Lambros' transactions with Standish and his arrest with mannitol and the marked money in his possession. 41 Similarly, appellant was not entitled to the instruction that he requested. Section 3501(d) of Title 18 provides that: 42 (d) Nothing contained in this section shall bar the admission in evidence of any confession made or given voluntarily by any person to any other person without interrogation by anyone, or at any time at which the person who made or gave such confession was not under arrest or other detention. 43 Appellant volunteered the information to his cellmate. Informal statements of this kind, although incriminating in effect, by terms of § 3501(d) do not trigger the procedures mandated by § 3501(a). 44