Opinion ID: 423909
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Statements of Rose Marie Chrisanthou

Text: 42 Appellants next argue that the district court erred by allowing Chrisanthou's wife Rose Marie to testify with respect to certain statements made by her husband prior to the arson. Rose Marie testified in substance that: 43 (1) approximately two weeks prior to the fire Chrisanthou stated that he and John Kynegos were to be paid $3,000 each for torching a diner and then showed her a business card with the name Kings Villa Diner printed on it; 44 (2) Chrisanthou's request on October 2, 1981 that she drive him to Astoria to meet with John Kynegos and somebody else, who she later identified as appellant Katsougrakis; and 45 (3) on October 3, 1981, the day before the fire, Chrisanthou informed her that he planned to meet Kynegos and another individual to discuss the criminal scheme and, upon returning, stated to her that he had come from a diner on Old County Road (where the Kings Villa was located) and had received $800 as a down payment for the arson. 46 Judge Mishler correctly ruled that these hearsay statements were admissible under either the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule, Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3), or because they were statements of a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy, Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). 47 Turning first to Rule 804(b)(3), we have observed that: 48 The Rule does not require that the declarant be aware that the incriminating statement subjects him to immediate criminal prosecution. Rather, it simply requires that the incriminating statement sufficiently tended  to subject the declarant to criminal liability so that a reasonable man in his position would not have made the statement unless he believed it to be true. 49 United States v. Lang, 589 F.2d 92, 97 (2d Cir.1978), quoted in United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d at 104. The disputed statements clearly  'tended' to subject the declarant to criminal liability--with each statement, Chrisanthou provided more evidence of his complicity in the arson scheme. Moreover, the marital communications were corroborated by expert testimony of fire and police investigators, by testimony concerning the financial condition of the diner, by Karagiannis' testimony and the non-hearsay portions of Vasiliou's testimony. Chrisanthou had no motive to lie to his wife and had reaffirmed his resolve to commit the arson on several occasions over a two week period. The district judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that corroborating circumstances confirmed the trustworthiness of the hearsay declaration. See United States v. Winley, 638 F.2d 560, 562 (2d Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 959, 102 S.Ct. 1472, 71 L.Ed.2d 678 (1982); United States v. Guillette, 547 F.2d 743, 754 (2d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 839, 98 S.Ct. 132, 54 L.Ed.2d 102 (1977). 50 Chrisanthou's statements to his wife were also properly admitted under the co-conspirator exception, Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). 9 A co-conspirator's statements will be admitted against the accused if the government can show by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed, that both the defendant and the declarant participated in it, that it was in existence at the time the statement was made, and that the statement was made in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Lieberman, 637 F.2d at 102 (citing United States v. Lyles, 593 F.2d 182, 194 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 972, 99 S.Ct. 1537, 59 L.Ed.2d 789 (1979); and United States v. Geaney, 417 F.2d 1116, 1120 (2d Cir.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1028, 90 S.Ct. 1276, 25 L.Ed.2d 539 (1970)). 51 The evidence presented at trial, including testimony from Karagiannis, Vasiliou and Rose Marie Chrisanthou, clearly established that Charlie Chrisanthou, Katsougrakis and Hiotis were members of the arson conspiracy and that the conspiracy was in existence at the time the challenged statements were made. Chrisanthou's representations furthered the conspiracy because, with his wife's assistance and knowledge--if not complete approval--he was able to carry out his criminal responsibilities with greater facility. The disputed statements were properly admitted by the district judge.