Opinion ID: 684947
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admission of Higgins' Testimony

Text: 12 Gage contests the district court's admission of Russell Higgins' testimony on two grounds. First, she contends that his testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay. Second, she contends his statements were too incredible to be believed and accordingly should have been excluded. We reject both claims. 13 The district court did not err in admitting Russell Higgins' testimony. Most of the testimony that Higgins provided concerned Gage's own statements and are therefore admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(A), which provides that a statement is not hearsay if ... [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... the party's own statement. The parts of Higgins' testimony that involved Arlt's descriptions of Gage's participation in the conspiracy are admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) because they meet the requirements of Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175-181 (1987) (outlining the four-part test), and United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 577 (9th Cir.1988). There was sufficient independent evidence on the record for the district court to conclude that Gage was aware of and involved in the conspiracy. In making its determination, the district court could consider Higgins' extensive testimony concerning Gage's involvement as long as its decision did not rest solely upon this evidence. United States v. Gordon, 844 F.2d 1397, 1402 (9th Cir.1988). Moreover, Higgins' testimony concerned statements by Arlt that were clearly made in the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Thus, the district court did not err in admitting Higgins' testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). 14 We also reject Gage's claim that her conviction should be reversed because it was entirely based on Higgins' testimony, which she argues is inherently unbelievable. First, Gage's conviction rested on other evidence. Second, even without this evidence, the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction unless it is incredible or insubstantial on its face. United States v. Necoechea, 986 F.2d 1273, 1282 (9th Cir.1993), amended, 1993 U.S.App. LEXIS 7785 (1992). Because evidence on the record corroborated significant portions of Higgins' testimony, the district court did not err in admitting it. 15