Opinion ID: 3019077
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Admissibility of Audio and Video Evidence

Text: Out-of-court statements from coconspirators are admissible against a fellow conspirator pursuant to F ED. R. E VID. 801(d)(2)(E).4 Before such evidence can be offered 3 That Rodriguez-Sanchez did not suffer undue prejudice by virtue of the joint trial is underscored by the fact that none of the defendants put forth direct evidence, relying instead on their hope that the jury would find that the government did not meet its burden of proof. The absence of conflicting theories from the defense makes the concerns raised by joint trials far less pressing. See United States v. Banks, 687 F.2d 967, 973 (7th Cir. 1982) (noting that defenses that did not conflict did not warrant severance). Moreover, the jury was properly instructed to weigh evidence against only those defendants to which it pertained. 4 Although this type of evidence involves out-of-court statements offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the Federal Rules of Evidence consider it to be non-hearsay rather than to fall within an exception to the hearsay rules. F ED. R. E VID. 801(d). 6 at trial, however, the District Court must, by a preponderance of the evidence, find that: (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the person whom the statements are being offered against was a member of the conspiracy, (3) the statements were made in the course of the conspiracy, and (4) the statements were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987); United States v. Vega, 285 F.3d 256, 264 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Rodriguez-Sanchez claims that the District Court erred by failing to make the requisite findings before admitting the video and audio tape evidence. Whether the District Court conducted the required analysis is a question of law which we review de novo. See Savarese v. Agriss, 883 F.2d 1194, 1200 (3d Cir. 1989) (quoting In+ re Japanese Elec. Prods., 723 F.2d 238, 257 (3d Cir. 1983) (rev’d on other grounds, sub nom. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986))). The District Court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Vega, 285 F.3d at 264. The District Court heard argument on Rodriguez-Sanchez’s motion in limine to prohibit the introduction of the video and audio evidence and denied it. As to a potential 801(d)(2)(E) problem, the District Court admitted the evidence subject to a motion to strike if proceedings during the trial ultimately revealed, despite initial impressions to the contrary, that the evidence was not related to the conspiracy. We believe the District Court’s decision comported with the requirements of F ED. R. E VID. 801 because the government established that the video tapes showed indicted coconspirators (including Rodriguez-Sanchez) meeting together and going to inspect one of the vessels that would 7 later be used in the drop-off. As to the audio tapes, the government established that they included conversations between an indicted coconspirator (with whom RodriguezSanchez was seen in the video) and unindicted coconspirators. The course of the trial gave the District Court no reason to question its earlier ruling because the government further connected Rodriguez-Sanchez to the conspiracy.