Opinion ID: 789574
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Excluded Co-Conspirator Statements

Text: 76 Milstein also contends that the District Court erroneously excluded from evidence a tape-recorded conversation, proffered by Milstein, between Rosenblum and Silberberg. Describing Rosenblum and Silberberg (who were not indicted) as his co-conspirators, Milstein claims the tape should have been admitted into evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as an admission of a co-conspirator. ( See Milstein brief on appeal at 67-70.) His reliance on that Rule is misplaced. 77 [A] statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is one type of [a]dmission by party-opponent defined as nonhearsay, but only if offered against the party. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). The statement of a conspirator, offered for its truth by a co-conspirator, is not within this Rule. See United States v. Kapp, 781 F.2d 1008, 1014 (3d Cir.1986). 78 Milstein's reliance on United States v. Tin Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31 (2d Cir.2004), for the proposition that it should make no difference which party to the litigation the statement is used against (Milstein reply brief on appeal at 32) is misplaced. That case involved a question of whether the proffered evidence had been sufficiently authenticated, not whether it came within the hearsay rule. Out-of-court statements by the party offering the statements and out-of-court statements by co-conspirators of the party offering the statements, when offered for their truth, remain hearsay and are not admissible unless they fit within an exception to the hearsay rule. No applicable exception has been called to our attention. We conclude that the District Court properly excluded the co-conspirator tape proffered by Milstein.