Opinion ID: 668541
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rivera's Challenge to the Testimony of Borrego

Text: 18 Rivera's other evidentiary challenge is more substantial, though ultimately it is not sufficient to warrant reversal. The government called as a witness one Walter Borrego, an informant who had tape-recorded conversations with Carlos Velez, a member of Aponte-Vega's organization, in which Borrego, on instructions from the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), had attempted to purchase heroin from the organization. Borrego also testified that he had attempted to obtain information from Velez in aid of a proposal that they rob Aponte-Vega. Thus, in one tape-recorded conversation, Borrego is heard asking Velez to get information from Aponte-Vega's organization but cautioning him to do so without asking direct questions: you can't ask anything because they can figure it, and you know, if you ask any question, you know, it could, they're gonna ... they could suspect.... (GX 105.) Asked at trial to what he had been referring, Borrego stated that he 19 had been trying to drill into Carlos' mind to get me all the addresses and places where material and money was kept in order to rip him off. 20 Q. Rip who off? 21 A. Sammy's connection. 22 Q. Whose plan was it to rip off Sammy's connection? 23 A. Mine. 24 Q. Why did you propose that plan to Carlos Velez? 25 A. What I wanted to know is where all the places were. 26 (Trial Transcript (Tr.) 650-51.) The government later proceeded to bring out that Velez had mentioned the name Quique in connection with one of Aponte-Vega's stash houses: 27 Q. Mr. Borrego, during the time that you were working with the DEA, did you ever hear the name Quique? 28 MR. SCHULMAN [Rivera's counsel]: Objection. 29 THE COURT: I'll permit that. 30 A. Yes. 31 Q. Under what circumstances? 32 A. When I was trying to get information out of Carlos with respect to the places where the heroin was kept, Carlos told me one day that Sammy had a partner in Queens, and that he believed that that was the place where the pure heroin was kept.... 33 Q. Who did Carlos Velez say was Sammy Aponte-Vega's partner? 34 A. He mentioned the name Quique. 35 Q. Did you ever find out Quique's true name? 36 A. No. 37 Q. Did you ever see the man that Carlos called Quique? 38 A. No. 39 (Id. 669-70.) 40 Rivera, one of whose nicknames was Quique, contends that Velez's testimony that Aponte-Vega had a partner named Quique who had a stash house was inadmissible hearsay. The government contends that (a) the statements were nonhearsay because they were statements of a coconspirator, and (b) even if they were hearsay, the admission of the statements was harmless. We agree only with the government's latter contention. 41 Under Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E), an out-of-court statement is nonhearsay if it was made by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. In order to admit a statement under this Rule, the court must find (1) that there was a conspiracy, (2) that its members included the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered, and (3) that the statement was made both (a) during the course of and (b) in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 2778-79, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987); United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d 1186, 1196 (2d Cir.1993); see also United States v. Mastropieri, 685 F.2d 776, 786 (2d Cir.) (declarations of one member of a conspiracy are admissible against another member only if made 'during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy'  (quoting Rule)), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 945, 103 S.Ct. 260, 74 L.Ed.2d 203 (1982). To be in furtherance of a conspiracy, the statements must in some way have been designed to promote or facilitate achievement of the goals of that conspiracy, as by, for example, providing information or reassurance to a coconspirator, seeking assistance from a coconspirator, or by communicating with a person who is not a member of the conspiracy in a way that is designed to help the coconspirators to achieve the conspiracy's goals. See, e.g., United States v. Tracy, 12 F.3d at 1196; United States v. Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d 934, 958 (2d Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2858, 115 L.Ed.2d 1026 (1991); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 35-36 (2d Cir.1987). 42 The erroneous admission of hearsay testimony is subject to harmless error analysis. See, e.g., United States v. Harwood, 998 F.2d 91, 99 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 456, 126 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993). Such an error will not form the basis for reversal if the appellate court can conclude with fair assurance that the evidence did not substantially influence the jury. United States v. Rea, 958 F.2d at 1220; see also Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 764-65, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). 43 We cannot conclude on the present record that Velez's statement to Borrego was in furtherance of a conspiracy of which Rivera was a member, for the record clearly indicates, and the government concedes, that Velez mentioned that Quique was a partner of Aponte-Vega and had a stash house in Queens only in the context of Borrego's attempt to identify targets within Aponte-Vega's organization that Borrego and Velez might be able to rob. We cannot accept the government's suggestion that statements elicited to facilitate the planning of a robbery of a stash house allegedly owned by Rivera were in furtherance of the conspiracy of which Rivera was a member. Accordingly, the statements were not within the scope of Rule 801(d)(2)(E). They were hearsay, and we see no ground on which they were admissible. 44 Nonetheless, we conclude that the error in admitting the statements was harmless, for their damaging effect was slight and the other evidence of Rivera's membership in the Aponte-Vega organization was abundant. Rodriguez testified that in May 1990, Rivera took over responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the mill at which Rodriguez worked. She testified that Rivera participated in working with the heroin, putting the heroin into packages (Tr. 796.); that he had overall responsibility to make sure everything was done right (id.); that he had responsibility for keeping the productivity records that tracked on a daily basis the heroin used, cut, and packaged; and that she observed Rivera make those records. Aponte-Vega was her boss, and Rivera was her second boss. And though Rivera maintained that Rodriguez had fabricated her testimony as to his involvement in the organization, her testimony was corroborated by expert testimony that a number of the organization's records were in Rivera's handwriting. 45 Against the wealth of detailed evidence as to Rivera's participation in the organization, the hearsay statements associating an otherwise unidentified person named Quique with Aponte-Vega and one of his stash houses were inconsequential. We are convinced that the challenged evidence did not substantially influence the jury and that the error was therefore harmless. 46