Court Opinion

ID: 9464162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:26:43.893618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:29.644090
License: Public Domain

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I do not think the hearsay statement was properly admitted under the coconspirator exception. Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). In this case I fear that the overwhelming evidence of the conspiracy has overflowed to enhance the extremely thin evidence linking Dixon to it. His presence in the car *1144could have an infinite number of innocent explanations; and his attempt to separate himself from an encounter with the police under the circumstances noted is hardly ' surprising.
Until now, the “slight evidence” required to link a defendant to an already proven conspiracy has been substantially more than this. As the majority notes, the evidence of the defendant’s connection, independent of the hearsay statement, must support a prima facie case; i. e., it must be sufficient to go to the jury. This circuit has recently held more extensive evidence of involvement to be insufficient when measured against the slight-evidence standard. United States v. Peterson, 549 F.2d 654, 657-8 (9th Cir. 1977).
Of course, there are suspicious circumstances. If defendants could be forced to answer questions, one could think of several for Dixon. But, viewing the government’s evidence against him apart from the evidence against the conspiracy, I do not see enough to make the hearsay admissible as to Dixon. I would reverse.