Opinion ID: 203288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Espada's Testimony About Co-Conspirators' Statements

Text: Espada testified that he first learned about Feliciano's role as a drug dealer because Saul and Miguelito, whom Feliciano employed as, respectively, a drug runner and seller, told Espada that Feliciano was in charge of a drug point where he sold crack and cocaine.... Espada further testified that Saul and Miguelito talked to me about [Appellant], they pointed him out to me, and they indicated that he was like the big shot at the drug point. ( Id. at 211.) Feliciano contends that these were highly prejudicial hearsay statements, with no basis in personal knowledge, and that the record is insufficient to permit a court to determine that the statements were properly admitted as co-conspirator statements, under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). At the outset, we note that, although Appellant made a timely objection to Espada's testimony regarding the statements of Saul and Miguelito, he did not seek a ruling regarding co-conspirator statements pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) and United States v. Petrozziello, 548 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir.1977). United States v. Tom, 330 F.3d 83, 93 (1st Cir.2003). More importantly, Appellant did not seek a ruling, as required, at the close of all evidence. United States v. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d 632, 638 (1st Cir. 1980). For Petrozziello purposes, the critical juncture is the close of all the evidence. United States v. Candelaria-Silva, 162 F.3d 698, 706 (1st Cir.1998). Thus, our review of Appellant's claim regarding admission of the statements is for plain error. See Tom, 330 F.3d at 93; United States v. Woods, 210 F.3d 70, 78 (1st Cir.2000). A statement is not hearsay and is therefore admissible if it is offered against a party and is made by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). A statement is admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) where the Government demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed, that the declarant and the defendant were members of it at the time that the declaration was made, and that the declaration was in furtherance of the conspiracy. Ciampaglia, 628 F.2d at 638. A statement is in furtherance of the conspiracy if it tends to advance the objects of the conspiracy as opposed to thwarting its purpose. United States v. Flores-Rivera, 56 F.3d 319, 330 (1st Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Fahey, 769 F.2d 829, 839 (1st Cir.1985)). The statements made to Espada by Saul and Miguelito were admissible co-conspirator statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). First, the evidence at trial was overwhelming that a drug conspiracy existed at the Covadonga housing complex. Second, the Government's evidence firmly established that Saul and Miguelito were Appellant's co-conspirators in the distribution of drugs at Covadonga. Medina's testimony established that Saul was among the drug sellers who, in 2003, regularly sold $5 bags of heroin and cocaine for Appellant, that Saul was in fact one of Appellant's most successful sellers, and that he also acted as one of Appellant's runners. Officer Quintero, an undercover agent who posed as a drug buyer and regularly collected the videotapes made by Espada, testified that Miguelito owned a drug point at Covadonga and also acted as a drug seller. Miguelito was also identified, on one of the videotape recordings made by Espada, as a participant in a drug transaction. Finally, it is also clear from the record that the statements made by Saul and Miguelito were in furtherance of the drug conspiracy. By explaining Appellant's role in the Covadonga drug market-place to Espada, Saul and Miguelito were in essence directing a potential customer to the source of narcotics, thus steering business toward Feliciano and advancing the objective of the drug ring. The district court did not commit plain error in admitting the co-conspirator statements. In sum, the evidentiary rulings identified by Appellant were either not errors or, if erroneous, were harmless in light of ample evidence of Appellant's guilt. The claimed errors, considered either individually or cumulatively, do not warrant reversal of Feliciano's convictions.