Opinion ID: 196298
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Nigro's Direct Testimony

Text: 21 Michael Murray's counsel objected that Nigro's testimony was gratuitous talk about marijuana, unrelated to the crimes charged or to any particular incident in the past. Before Nigro testified, the district judge stated that [t]he statements by Michael Murray ... are admissions so they're admissible as against Mr. Murray. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A). 22 On direct examination, the government confined its questions to the period from September 1991 to November 1991, when Nigro was cooperating with the DEA on this case. Nigro testified that he met with Michael Murray and asked if Murray had any marijuana for sale. Nigro stated that after several such meetings, Michael Murray agreed to front Nigro between 1000 and 2000 pounds of marijuana. Near the close of Nigro's direct examination, the government played a tape of one of the Nigro-Murray meetings. In that conversation, Michael Murray generally described his experience with importation of marijuana from Colombia and Mexico, from getting the marijuana across the river to weighing marijuana to piecing together loads of marijuana from different suppliers. The district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting either Nigro's testimony on direct examination or the tape-recorded conversation between Michael Murray and Nigro. Both were properly admissible against Michael Murray as admissions. 5 Michael Murray's part of the conversations constituted non-hearsay admissions of a party. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A); United States v. McDowell, 918 F.2d 1004, 1007 (1st Cir.1990). Nigro's part of the conversations served as  'reciprocal and integrated utterance(s),'  McDowell, at 918 F.2d at 1007 (quoting United States v. Metcalf, 430 F.2d 1197, 1199 (8th Cir.1970)), reasonably required to place [Murray's] admissions into context and make them intelligible to the jury. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because Nigro's statements were offered only for context and not for the truth of the matter asserted, those statements are not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). 23