Court Opinion

ID: 9842989
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:23:39.316363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:23.802158
License: Public Domain

SWYGERT, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I agree with the reasoning of the Third Circuit in United States v. Inadi, 748 F.2d 812 (3d Cir.1984), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 2653, 86 L.Ed.2d 271 (1985), holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment requires the government to show that a non-testifying coconspirator is unavailable to testify before his hearsay statements can be admitted pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)2E, I am constrained to follow prior decisions of this court which have adopted a contrary rule. Moreover, as the majority holds, see ante at 369, the defendant can still obtain relief should the Supreme Court affirm Inadi. See Shea v. Louisiana, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 1065, 84 L.Ed.2d 38 (1985). I therefore concur in the affirmance of the conviction.