Document: 483 U.S. 171 107 S.Ct. 2775 97 L.Ed.2d 144 William John BOURJAILY, Petitionerv.UNITED STATES. No. 85-6725. Argued April 1, 1987. Decided June 23, Syllabus In a tape-recorded telephone conversation with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) informant arranging to sell cocaine, Angelo Lonardo, who had agreed earlier find individuals distribute the drug, said he "gentleman friend" (petitioner) some questions. subsequent call, spoke "friend" about drug's quality and price, later arranged Lonardo for sale take place in designated parking lot, where would transfer drug from informant's car "friend." The transaction took as planned, FBI arrested petitioner immediately after placed into petitioner's car. At trial that resulted his conviction federal charges, including conspiracy charge, Government introduced, over objection, Lonardo's statements regarding "friend's" participation transaction. District Court found that, considering both events lot statements, established by preponderance evidence involving existed, were made course furtherance conspiracy, thus satisfied Rule Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), which provides statement is not hearsay if it "by coconspirator party during conspiracy." Appeals affirmed, agreeing admissible under Rules Evidence, also rejecting contention because could cross-examine (who exercised right testify), admission violated Sixth Amendment confront witnesses against him. Held: out-of-court properly admitted petitioner. Pp. 175-184. (a) When preliminary facts relevant 801(d)(2)(E) existence nonoffering party's involvement it—are disputed, offering must prove them evidence, higher standard proof. 104(a) requires court determine questions concerning admissibility but do define traditional requirement such be proof, regardless burden proof on substantive issues, applies here. 175-176. (b) There no merit contention—based "bootstrapping rule" Glasser v. United States, 315 60, 62 457, 86 L.Ed. 680, States Nixon, 418 683, 94 3090, 41 1039—that court, determining look only independent other than sought admitted. Both Nixon decided before Congress enacted admissibility, "is bound rules evidence" (except those respect privileges), authorizing consideration hearsay. Such construction does fundamentally change nature co-conspirator exception rule. Out-of-court are presumed unreliable may rebutted appropriate individual pieces insufficient themselves point, cumulation it. Thus, per se rule barring factfinding required. Each was corroborated consisting transpired at lot. Accordingly, need whether, 104(a), courts below have relied solely upon establish admissibility. If interpreted meaning cannot any purpose, they been superseded 104(a). It sufficient this case hold making factual determination examine 176-181. (c) Admission did violate rights Confrontation Clause. requirements identical Clause, since Rule, there constitutional problem. context, general matter, prosecution demonstrate unavailability declarant indicia reliability surrounding declaration. However, showing required when declaration co-conspirator. Inadi, 475 387, 106 1121, 89 390. Moreover, inquiry falls within firmly rooted exception, exception. 181—184. 781 F.2d 539, affirmed. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered opinion Court, WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, JJ., joined. J., filed concurring opinion, post, p. ----. BLACKMUN, dissenting BRENNAN MARSHALL, joined, Stephen Allan Saltzburg, Charlottesville, Va., Lawrence S. Robbins, New York City, respondent. Chief Justice REHNQUIST Court. 1 provides: "A . [t]he offered We granted certiorari answer three 801(d)(2)(E): (1) whether existed defendant members conspiracy; (2) quantum determinations based; (3) each circumstances its reliability. 479 881, 268, 93 246 (1986). 2 May 1984, Clarence Greathouse, an working (FBI), kilogram cocaine Lonardo. drug. became imminent, stated ask cocaine. Greathouse price. then again two details purchase. They hotel Greathouse's "friend," waiting own proceeded agents car, $20,000 cash. 3 Petitioner charged conspiring violation 21 U.S.C. § 846, possession intent distribute, 841(a)(1). telephone, conspiracy. App. 66-75. held convicted counts sentenced 15 years. Circuit 539 Court's analysis conclusion Evidence. rejected these affirm. 4 Before admitting co-conspirator's objection qualify actually definition Rule. party, "during "Preliminary shall determined court." agree fact 104, resolved court. Rules, however, nowhere observe resolving 5 therefore guided our prior decisions hinge traditionally matters jury satisfies technical evidentiary embody certain legal policy determinations. concerned proponent wins or loses merits, satisfied. unrelated criminal case, see re Winship, 397 358, 90 1068, 25 368 (1970), civil case. See generally Colorado Connelly, 157, 167-169, 515, 522-523, 473 ensures will more likely issues concerns addressed afforded due consideration. As Lego Twomey, 404 477, 488, 92 619, 626, 30 618 (1972), we "nothing suggest rulings otherwise wanting based standard." think previous area resolve matter. See, e.g., supra (preliminary custodial confessant waived proved evidence); Nix Williams, 467 431, 444, n. 5, 104 2501, 2509, 81 377 (1984) (inevitable discovery illegally seized shown not); Matlock, 415 164, 988, 39 242 (1974) (voluntariness consent search confession demonstrated evidence). Therefore, evidence.1 6 Even though agrees applied proper regard nevertheless challenges statements. argues exists member it, evidence—that is, relies 680 (1942), first mentioned so-called rule." issue Glasser's counsel, represented another defendant, faced conflict interest received ineffective assistance. contended conflicting loyalties led lawyer object one co-conspirators. argued fruitless admissible. proposition: 7 "[S]uch declarations alleged co-conspirator, present made, aliunde connected Otherwise, lift itself bootstraps level competent evidence." Id., 74-75, S.Ct., 467. 8 revisited bootstrapping 1039 (1974), again, passing, stated: "Declarations defendants showing, among 701, 14, 3104, 14 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted). Read light most favorable petitioner, mean should consider all 801(d)(2)(E). Petitioner, course, adopts view Glasser, aliunde, has evidence. Courts widely adopted former co-conspirators' their value. 9 1975. These now govern treatment courts. except privileges." Similarly, 1101(d)(1) states (other privileges) apply "[t]he 104." question presented aspect remains viable enactment 10 concedes face, appears allow make wishes, unhindered considerations Brief 27. That seem many end anyone, putative co-conspirators, often are, considered, notwithstanding. But rule, construed survived apparently unequivocal law unscathed what says. disagree. 11 claims evidenced disturb embedded approach, altered without affirmative so indicating. extraordinary require legislative history confirm plain 104. face allows judge whatsoever, privilege. sufficiently clear extent inconsistent interpretation prevails.2 12 Nor admit credible changing starts proposition deemed inadmissible, least until shown. Since unreliable, contends form part basis establishing very antecedent renders 13 Petitioner's theory ignores simple life. First, unreliable. presumption Fed. Evid. 803(24) (otherwise inadmissible circumstantial guarantees trustworthiness demonstrated). Second, sum presentation well greater constituent parts. Taken together, propositions piece isolation, become quite probative A co-conspirators presumptively permitted evaluate worth revealed particular act factfinders, reason believe less able recognize value area. opposing adequate incentive point out shortcomings finds facts. unsuccessful keeping factfinder, still opportunity attack relates Fed.Rule 806 (allowing credibility declarant). little doubt presents paradigm. indicated involved friend buy accept gave keys. taken whole, entire between friend, turned showed up prearranged spot time. He picked significant money On facts, concluded, correctly, decide To meant clearly today cases determinations, "the receive give weight judgment experience counsel." U.S., 175, 995. considered finding erroneous. petitioner.3 16 reject suggestion Clause Amendment. "In prosecutions, accused enjoy confronted him." trial, testify. rendered unconstitutional agree. 17 While literal bar use unavailable, "unintended too extreme." Ohio Roberts, 448 56, 63, 100 2531, 2537, 65 597 (1980). Rather, attempted harmonize goal Clause—placing limits kind defendant—with societal accurate factfinding, accommodate competing interests, has, matter only, "indicia reliability" 65-66, 2538-2539. Last Term 390 (1986), generalized inquiries, unavailability, Today, conclude second inquiry, reliability, mandated Constitution. 18 decision Roberts laid down "a approach problem" reconciling exceptions 65, 2538. fact, separate statement. Because " 'hearsay designed protect similar values,' California Green, 399 [149, 155, 1930, 1933, 26 489 (1970)], 'stem same roots,' Dutton Evans, 400 74, 86, 91 210, 218, 27 213 (1970)," id., 66, 2539, concluded "falls exception." Ibid. enough jurisprudence holding independently inquire Cf. (1970) (reliability deviates common-law termination conspiracy). century half ago Gooding, Wheat. 460, 693 (1827) (interpreting res gestae defendant), repeatedly reaffirmed accepted practice. prominent approvals came maintains vital today, (1974). steeped jurisprudence. Delaney 263 586, 590, 44 206, 207, 68 462 (1924), challenge brings can ruling, precedent long tradition being outside compass exclusion. embark satisfy 801(d)(2)(E).4 19 Affirmed. 20 concurring. "bootstrapping" announced 467, possible interpretations. prevalent entirely correctly holds reading foreclosed language unambiguously authorizes contents proffered 22 I never persuaded, correct. my view, declarant's unless corroborating support triple defendants, furthered objectives An provide sole admissibility—it tugging bootstraps. may, bootstraps, together support, overcome objection. words "aliunde," source, conditions 467.1 This requiring complete fully consistent 104(a).2 If, assume did, drafters understood do, indicate affected new Rule.3 23 absence indicating reasoning join. 24 whom MARSHALL join, dissenting. disagree respects:1 changed long- well-settled effect relating nontestifying statement, itself. allowing resolution remedy problems statement's unreliability. abandonment independent-evidence lead, instead, opposite result. eliminate few safeguards exemption possesses. Third, alters exemption—especially contributes statement—I rely "firmly exception" rationale, (1980), avoid surely demands. * recognizes according definition, establish, matters, defendant's therein apart Ante, 177. settled 1975 adoption particularly 1101(d)(1). explains, information, hearsay, 177-178. reasons threshold question—whether belonged, existed. According 104(a)'s "plain meaning" "extraordinary" step looking confirmation meaning. 178.2 rule's meaning," appears, lightly ignored dismissed. inclination seems immediate tempered caution when, complex interrelations interpretive Cleary, Preliminary Notes Reading 57 Neb.L.Rev. 908, 908 (1978) ("[T]he answers arise specific terms Rules"). addition, plainly address problem, naturally expect (if exists) read codification included requirement. examination reveals neither nor intended transform way. sum, espouses overly rigid approach; casts substantial easy solution. A. 28 order understand why signified Advisory Committee's retain exemption's requirement, useful review briefly contours stood Rules. By accounts, agency principles, underlying concept common undertaking conspirators acts attributed all. J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's ¶ 801(d)(2)(E)[01], pp. 801-232 801-233 (1985) (Weinstein Berger); Davenport, Co-Conspirator Exception Criminal Prosecutions: Functional Analysis, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 1378, 1384 (1972) (Davenport). Judge Learned Hand explained frequently quoted remark: 29 "When men enter agreement unlawful end, ad hoc another, 'partnership crime.' What pursuant and, acts, all." Van Riper 961, 967 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Ackerson 273 702, 47 102, 71 848 (1926). components exemption, turn, justification. fall "in of" arose rationale agent's principal agent acting scope employment. Levie, Hearsay Conspiracy: Reexamination Co-Conspirators' 52 Mich.L.Rev. 1159, 1161 (1954) (Levie); D. Louisell C. Mueller, 427, 348 (1980) (Louisell Mueller). feature necessarily accompanies employment business relationship principal, accordance acting, deeds words. Mich.L.Rev., 1161; Mueller 337. 31 final directly corresponds used alone relationship. 32 "Evidence authority extent, or, persons dealing agent, apparent power agent" added). Restatement (Second) Agency 285 (1958). 33 1161. behind traced back principal. F. Mechem, Law 285, 205 (1914). 34 unlike exceptions, primarily ensure truthfulness compensate test veracity cross-examining declarant. Harv.L.Rev., 1384. such, "vicarious admission."3 Although himself, vicarious imputed admissions, "adversary system," rather account ban hearsay: thought complain deprivation himself (or authorized speak him) advocate own, agent's, untrustworthiness. McCormick 262, 775 (E. Cleary ed. 1984). "admission" justified ground valuable prosecuting somewhat reduced concern statement.4 Standards Proof Questions Fact, Stan.L.Rev. 271, 303 (1975); R. Lempert Modern Approach 395 (2d 1982) (Lempert Saltzburg). 35 Although, law, primary justifying recognition trustworthiness, albeit limited ones. justification explained: 36 "Active know done. speaking advance unlikely describe non-members conspirators, usually misdescribe actions fellow members." Saltzburg 395. 37 Wigmore, 1080a, 199 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1972) idea receiving third person was, time speaking, him substantially something hand opponent, motive person's approximately testimonial opponent them") original). And contribute conspirator viewed perspective achieve goals self-serving motives. 1387. particular, seen issue. Yet goes much itself, process it: introduced shows existing 1390 ("Independent conspiracy's supply inferences declaration"); 38 alter way hearsay.5 essentially codify exemption: category "not hearsay," admission, contrast 803 804. Committee exclusion admissions system" "guarantee trustworthiness" justify exceptions. 801, U.S.C.App., 717, 56 F.R.D. 183, 297 (1972); Note, Clause: Closing Window Admissibility Coconspirator Hearsay, 53 Ford.L.Rev. 1291, 1295, (1985). More importantly, explicitly retaining expressed intention remain expanded recognized subject criticism.6 American Institute's Model Code gone far abandon eliminated observing "[t]hese true, realization interest." 508(b) commentary, 251 (1942). Committee, declined reservation foundation 801(d)(2)(E).7 40 justification, general, language, compromise position. appropriately balanced prosecution's protections provided exemption. Berger 801-235. doubts doubts, extended: "[T]he best fiction ought serve beyond already established." 718, F.R.D., 299. include requirement.8 B together—an neglects undertake—there freedom gives interpretative funambulist walk demands arrive respective concerns, effort preferred accepting easily available safety "net" meaning." purposes achieved following: "whether exist K. Redden, Manual 735 (4th 1986). questions, unchanged. 42 recognizes, ante, 177, years Appeals, almost uniformly, adhere 801(d)(2)(E).9 Indeed, component because, like incremental protection defendants. Bell, 573 1040, 1044 (CA8 1978). cavalierly disregards experience, rich arrives approach. II 43 argument favor might characterized attempt pragmatic "real world" analysis. suggests while unreliability examined 179 180. reveal value, demonstrate. Proceeding vein, believes capable detecting remaining I, too, prefer includes realistic come Lee Illinois, 476 530, 547-548, 2056, 2066, 514 (1986) (dissenting opinion). am inclined, shaped trials frank 45 above, despite prosecutors constitute, best, nothing "idle chatter" worst, malicious gossip. innocent difficult defending for, Stipe, 517 F.Supp. 867, 871 (WD Okla.), aff'd, 653 446 (CA10 1981) ("The dangers numerous someone else authorized, intended, even knew ignored"). experienced credit incriminatory explain, precisely ready explanation actual retained safeguards, limited, defendant. safeguard. 46 set aside, lost. From perspective, cure loss. Contrary suggestion, situation commonly participated instances constitutes just "piece evidence," important greatest frequently, situations muster show adequate. situation, conspirators' actions, necessary control whatever series innocuous participating about. removes safeguard heartening, reserves alone, 181; 184 (STEVENS, concurring). ultimate example "bootstrapping," pass reformulation. For corroborative bring 179—180. unsupported remark conspirator—a result countenance completely cuts adrift mooring.10 III 48 left open There, production constitutionally 400, 1129. Inadi occasion reach purposes, specifically. 391, 3, 1124, 3. concludes Constitution 182. Relying "indicia" needed 'falls exception.' quoting supra, 2539. footnote, dismisses altering same, merely "method proof." 184, 49 "[r]eliability inferred significance remember "accuracy process" central cross-examination normally serves. sometimes occurs trial. 149, guarantee promote accuracy trial—a function fulfilled cross-examination. Clause's what, any, how rooted" through use, process." Ford.L.Rev., 1306-1307. 50 weakness assertion—that vanishes 801(d)(2)(E)'s exception"—thus becomes apparent. inclusion rubric indicate, grounds extensive. 1311-1312. surprising hesitation, turns confidence reliability." 51 astounding, reliance simultaneously escape contradiction dismissing alteration simply defined removal significantly transforms respect. takes away given undermining status. ways: admittedly does, conjuring benign genie extricate With transformation having Roberts' utterly misplaced. pertinent sentence following Court: [where exception"], excluded, absent particularized trustworthiness." believe, involve factors outlined 88-89, 219, (plurality opinion); 1302. Intellectual honesty demands, least, remand lower explore "particularized have.11 respectfully dissent. intimate falling 104(b) (conditional relevancy). decline coming forward party. E. 53, 136, (3d Finally, express follow concluding ongoing fit absentmindedness. Note specifically addresses requisite admissibility: "If nature, necessity pro con process. 123, 8, points authorities 'scattered inconclusive,' observes: 'Should exclusionary child Thayer's phrase, hearing judge? Sound sense backs not, empowered hear affidavits reliable hearsay.' 681 further noted: "An item, objected to, ruling yet makes drafters' abolish Silence ambiguous, invitation speculation import ambiguity Given disposition, Government's argument, 21-25, abolishing longer tradition. method element remained substantively unchanged country. "independently complained of, connecting 75, cut eliminating completely, preserved aliunde. First Martorano, 557 (1977), denied, 435 922, 98 1484, 55 515 (1978): "We [of evidence] overruling seeking exists. stands warning judges ordinarily weight. Here, corroborates drawn problem statement" Vinson, 606 153, (CA6 1979), 444 1074, 1020, 756 (1980); Enright, 579 980, 985, required: 681. establishes 176. cursory glance purports supports question. 179, 2. Dean McCormick, "vicarious" "representative" rationale. either expressly 267, 787-788 refer here truly i.e., truth asserted—not verbal above quotation suggests, distinction always made. 792. 395-396, 1126-1127, recently emphasized importance prosecutions. codifying adopt application understanding STEVENS' Glasser. 184-185 (concurring criticized. 1165 (defendant unable force "alter ego" stand, invokes privilege self-incrimination); 1296 nn. 35. citation Levie article awareness criticism. 299 (1972). justifications criticism 1165-1166 conspirator's lie misleading listener believing stronger (and different members) aims has. victory belief criminals notorious law"); 1384-1391; 36. aware criticism, too. 6, supra. confirms Hearings Proposed Special Subcommittee Reform Laws House Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 249 (1973) (statement Henry Friendly: "While wrong [801(d)(2)(E) ], says help anybody bare be. bit"); Senate 2d 318 Herbert Semmel: "Finally, bill affect 801(d)(2)"). indicates 162 Richard H. Keatinge T. Blanchard: "Rule appear conventional position adequacy membership conspiracy"). Besides Circuit, permits rehearing, 561 406 (1978). qualifies deviation F.2d, 408 ("But would, original deviating practice permitting district color shed highly trustworthy portions utterance admission"). Several inroad James, 590 575, 581 (CA5) (en banc), 442 917, 99 2836, 61 283 (1979); 1978); Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, 723 238, 261 (CA3 1983), rev'd Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Zenith Radio Corp., 574, 1348, 538 Other continue DeFillipo, 1228, 1236, 920, 2844, 288 Portsmouth Paving 694 312, 320 (CA4 1982); Rabb, 752 1320, 1325 (CA9 1984), 471 1019, 105 2027, 308 (1985); Austin, 786 986, 989-990 Still courts, noting passed Jackson, 201 U.S.App.D.C. 212, 229, 34, 627 1198, 1215, Santiago, 582 1128, 1133, (CA7 excluding evaluation unaltered reliability," special unusually crucial 33-39. strong inclined demand 1327 (arguing "crucial prosecutor's devastatingly prejudicial defendant"); 1401-1404 (describing concerns). effectively prevent declarant, increases prong

Category: 0