Opinion ID: 2822110
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Recorded Phone Calls

Text: As mentioned above while discussing the disqualification of Cummings's counsel, two conversations involving Cummings were recorded while he was detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), Guaynabo. In both calls -- one on June 5, 2012, and one on July 14, 2012 -- Cummings spoke with Christopher, who had not yet been arrested. Besides discussing the payments to Cummings's -32- counsel, the two also discussed whether Juan was looking for Gordo -- recall, this is Rivas's alias. Cummings informed Christopher that Juan was working in the kitchen at MDC, Guaynabo and had been looking for Rivas but was unable to find him. In addition, Cummings and Christopher spoke about the attack on Christopher and his family outside the bakery, specifically focusing on the fact that other members of their organization had advance knowledge of the attack and that there would be retaliation against those who shifted loyalties.
Juan objects to the admission of the two phone calls on hearsay grounds. Because he failed to object when the statements were first admitted and at the close of evidence, we review for plain error.21 See Ciresi, 697 F.3d at 25-26 (holding that to preserve a challenge to the admission of co-conspirator statements, a defendant must object on hearsay grounds when his or her coconspirator's statement is provisionally admitted and must renew the objection at the close of evidence). We reject this challenge, as the calls were properly admitted as co-conspirator statements. 21 Juan did initially object on Confrontation Clause grounds, but does not renew that objection on appeal. See Wallace, 461 F.3d at 35 n.11. Even if he had, that argument would fail as well, as coconspirator statements are by their nature, not testimonial, and thus not subject to the Confrontation Clause. Ciresi, 697 F.3d at 31; see also Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 182 (1987). -33- Though hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in criminal trials, Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that a statement made by a defendant's coconspirator 'during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy' may be introduced as the nonhearsay admission of a party opponent. Id. (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E)). For a statement to qualify, the declarant and the defendant must be members of a conspiracy when the statement was made and the statement must have been made in furtherance of the conspiracy. Id. The calls here meet both requirements. As to the first, the government provided significant evidence that Juan, Cummings, and Christopher were all members of the same drug organization -- and thus the same conspiracy -- and there is nothing in the record to suggest that any Defendant affirmatively withdrew from the conspiracy. See United States v. Piper, 298 F.3d 47, 52 (1st Cir. 2002) (Where a conspiracy contemplates a continuity of purpose and a continued performance of acts, it is presumed to exist until there has been an affirmative showing that it has terminated. (internal quotation marks omitted)). As to the second requirement, the calls did in fact further the ends of the conspiracy. At the time of the calls, Cummings and Juan had been arrested but Christopher had not, and the evidence showed that the conspiracy was still ongoing at the Housing Project. For example, Officer Vázquez testified that -34- surveillance continued until November 2012, months after the June and July telephone calls. Moreover, when Christopher was arrested, additional guns and drugs were seized, suggesting that the contraband seized in the earlier raids had been replenished. See United States v. Elwell, 984 F.2d 1289, 1293 (1st Cir. 1993) (finding a conspiracy to be ongoing and defendant to still be a part of it even after his arrest). Given that the organization was still operating, the calls can reasonably be interpreted as promoting the conspiracy. Cummings and Christopher discussed how certain members of the conspiracy -- such as Rivas -- knew that Christopher was going to be attacked and that Christopher was contemplating retaliating against those who were disloyal. Maintaining loyalty from others clearly promotes the conspiracy. See Ciresi, 697 F.3d at 30 (finding that statements served to placate . . . and forestall any dissension were in furtherance of the conspiracy); Elwell, 984 F.2d at 1293. The calls, therefore, properly qualify as co-conspirator statements and were thus properly admitted.