Court Opinion

ID: 9399004
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 17:01:19.789524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:38.266042
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-14219   Document: 62-1    Date Filed: 05/31/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-14219
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JOHN HOLLAND,
       EDMUNDO COTA,
       WILLIAM MOORE,

                                                Defendant-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-14219       Document: 62-1       Date Filed: 05/31/2023      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                    22-14219

                             ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:17-cr-00234-AT-CMS-1
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              The motions to dismiss filed by Edmundo Cota and John
       Holland are DENIED and this appeal may proceed. The govern-
       ment appeals from the district court’s pre-trial order denying the
       government’s motion to admit alleged co-conspirator statements
       under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E). Although that is an interlocutory
       order and there has not yet been a trial or judgment, we have juris-
       diction over this appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3731.
              Under § 3731, the government may file an interlocutory ap-
       peal from an order “suppressing or excluding evidence.” 18 U.S.C.
       § 3731. Section 3731 must be “liberally construed to effectuate its
       purposes.” Id. Our predecessor court held that an order denying
       the admission of alleged co-conspirator statements after a James
       hearing is an order excluding evidence for purposes of § 3731.
       United States v. Perry, 624 F.2d 29, 30 (5th Cir. 1980); see United States
       v. James, 590 F.2d 575, 578-82 (5th Cir. 1979) (providing process for
       evaluating whether alleged co-conspirator statements are admissi-
       ble under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) before trial).
USCA11 Case: 22-14219      Document: 62-1      Date Filed: 05/31/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       22-14219               Opinion of the Court                          3

              Because the district court denied the government’s motion
       to admit the alleged co-conspirator statements after thoroughly
       considering their admissibility under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) and con-
       ducting what it called a James hearing on paper, we conclude that
       the order in this case is analogous to an order refusing to admit
       alleged co-conspirator statements after a James hearing, which is
       immediately appealable. See Perry, 624 F.2d at 30; United States
       v. Drogoul, 1 F.3d 1546, 1551 n.13 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that an
       order is appealable under § 3731 if it has “the practical effect of ex-
       cluding evidence at trial”). Furthermore, this conclusion is con-
       sistent with the liberal construction of § 3731 required by the stat-
       ute itself.