Federal Rule Of Evidence 801(D)(2)(E) (Co-Conspirator Statements)

146 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Santiago
  582 F.2d 1128· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-22 ·cited 192×
  The court held that the trial judge's preliminary determination of admissibility for co-conspirator statements was sufficient, and the sentencing judge's comments, while potentially problematic, did not constitute an abuse of discretion or warrant vacating the sentence.
• United States v. Russell
  703 F.2d 1243· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 164×
  The court held that the joinder of defendants was permissible, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the trial court properly admitted co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Jefferson
  714 F.2d 689· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 142×
  The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the searches were lawful, the evidence was properly admitted, the jury instructions were adequate, and the sentencing did not violate double jeopardy principles.
• United States v. Scholle
  553 F.2d 1109· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-12 ·cited 142×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper because substantial independent evidence showed a likelihood of illicit association, and that the admission of prior consistent statements and evidence of prior bad acts was permissible under the Federal Ru
• United States v. Patterson
  644 F.2d 890· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 136×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the convictions and that no reversible error occurred during the trial.
• United States v. Chan Walker Zielie
  734 F.2d 1447· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-25 ·cited 122×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated one, finding no violations of speedy trial, self-representation, opening statement, co-conspirator statement admissibility, sufficiency of evidence, forfeiture, double jeopardy, or jury communication rights.
• United States v. Ciampaglia
  628 F.2d 632· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 121×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, the timing of the Petrozziello ruling was not plain error, pre-indictment delay did not violate due process, reference to the witness protection program was not grounds for a mistrial, withheld evidence w
• United States v. Urrego-Linares
  879 F.2d 1234· 4th Cir.· 1989-07-20 ·cited 106×
  A defendant seeking a mitigating factor at sentencing bears the burden of proving its applicability by a preponderance of the evidence, and co-conspirator statements made after arrest are admissible if in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Ordonez
  737 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the Ninth Circuit's refusal to adopt the rule of per se admissibility for statements falling within firmly rooted hearsay exceptions is incorrect and conflicts with Supreme Court precedent.
• United States v. Stanchich
  550 F.2d 1294· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-06 ·cited 97×
  The court held that Fitzgerald's statements were admissible against Stanchich on the substantive counts because sufficient independent evidence showed Stanchich's participation in the conspiracy by a preponderance of the evidence, even though the conspiracy count itself was dismi
• United States v. Ramsey
  785 F.2d 184· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-28 ·cited 94×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's findings of guilt and that the jury instructions and evidentiary rulings were proper.
• United States v. Varella
  692 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination of informants, denying severance motions, or admitting hearsay statements made in furtherance of a continuing conspiracy.
• United States v. McLERNON
  746 F.2d 1098· 6th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that a voluntariness instruction was not required when the defense strategy was to deny the statement was made, and that items seized in plain view were properly seized under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement.
• United States v. Sophie
  900 F.2d 1064· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-24 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying Poliak's motion for an evidentiary hearing on his alleged plea agreement, nor in denying Laskowski's motion to suppress statements made after his arrest, nor in admitting evidence of Laskowski's prior marijuana dealing
• United States v. Smith
  918 F.2d 1501· 11th Cir.· 1990-12-14 ·cited 74×
  The court affirmed most convictions but vacated sentences for multiple firearm offenses for Hicks and A.J. Smith, remanding for resentencing.
• United States v. Mendoza
  574 F.2d 1373· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-16 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the marital privilege barring one spouse from testifying adversely to another is inapplicable when the testifying spouse did not testify at trial, but this error was harmless.
• United States v. Williams
  798 F.2d 1024· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-15 ·cited 72×
  The court reversed Debbie Williams' conspiracy conviction due to insufficient evidence but affirmed convictions for David Williams and Wayne Russell.
• United States v. Tillman J. Bentley
  706 F.2d 1498· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the warrants were supported by probable cause, the co-conspirator statements were admissible, and the trial court did not err in evidentiary rulings or denying a new trial or mistrial.
• United States v. Nile Smith
  790 F.2d 789· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 70×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the warrantless arrest and seizure were lawful, the admission of a co-defendant's guilty plea was not reversible error, and other assignments of error lacked merit.
• United States v. Smith
  578 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-17 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the admission of certain tape-recorded statements, even if inadmissible, constituted harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to Leonard Smith's conviction.
• United States v. Goodman
  605 F.2d 870· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy was proper under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) and did not violate the appellants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The court also found that limitations
• United States v. MacKey
  571 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1978-02-22 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement was proper as it was made during the concealment phase of the conspiracy, and that other alleged errors, including prosecutorial misconduct and evidentiary rulings, did not warrant reversal.
• United States v. Rucker
  586 F.2d 899· 2d Cir.· 1978-09-28 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying severance, admitting prior conviction evidence, or in its jury instructions, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Shafter W. Summers
  598 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-09 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to establish an effect on interstate commerce for Hobbs Act jurisdiction and that the limitations on cross-examination did not violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights.
• United States v. de Gudino
  722 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-19 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination regarding a witness's prior arrest, excluding a deportation document, or admitting 'polio lists' as co-conspirator statements.
• United States v. Alonzo
  571 F.2d 1384· 5th Cir.· 1978-04-28 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the admission of flight evidence, hearsay testimony, and the restriction of cross-examination were not reversible errors, and the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.
• United States v. Alejo Maldonado Medina
  761 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that evidence of a prior kidnapping was admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and as proof of an overt act, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting coconspirator statements or in its handling of pretrial publicity and jury i
• United States v. Crocker
  788 F.2d 802· 1st Cir.· 1986-04-09 ·cited 50×
  The court held that while most evidentiary rulings were proper, the sentencing judge's comments created a reasonable likelihood of vindictiveness, requiring a resentencing.
• United States v. ROE
  670 F.2d 956· 11th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting co-conspirator statements, salesman statements, and extrinsic offense evidence, and that the jury selection procedure was proper.
• United States v. Laurence John Layton
  855 F.2d 1388· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-16 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction over charges of conspiracy and aiding/abetting the killing of a member of Congress and an internationally protected person, even though the acts occurred outside the United States. The court als
• United States v. Reyes
  798 F.2d 380· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-29 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause, the scope of the search warrant was not exceeded, the admitted evidence was properly authenticated, and co-conspirator testimony was admissible. The conviction is affirmed.
• United States v. Drew
  894 F.2d 965· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 47×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that co-conspirator statements were admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support convictions, and the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury.
• United States v. Stewart
  770 F.2d 825· 9th Cir.· 1985-09-04 ·cited 46×
  The court affirmed the conviction but vacated the sentence, remanding for resentencing due to procedural errors in the sentencing process.
• United States v. Glennon E. Engleman
  648 F.2d 473· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that evidence of prior similar crimes is admissible to prove intent, and tape recordings made with one party's consent are admissible under the Fourth Amendment. However, a co-conspirator's statement made after the conspiracy's objective was achieved is inadmissibl
• United States v. Cochran
  697 F.2d 600· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirators' statements, the variance between the indictment and proof, the jury's viewing of an inadmissible transcript, nondisclosure of certain materials, prosecutorial remarks, and the admission of photographs did not constitute revers
• United States v. Moody
  778 F.2d 1380· 9th Cir.· 1985-12-17 ·cited 42×
  The court held that co-conspirator testimony was properly admitted, the Jencks Act was not violated, plea-bargained testimony is admissible and subject to cross-examination, and the prosecution was not impermissibly selective.
• United States v. Brown
  739 F.2d 1136· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-04 ·cited 42×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error in the admission of co-conspirator statements, jury instructions, or claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and improper venue.
• United States v. McMANAMAN
  606 F.2d 919· 10th Cir.· 1979-10-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while the admission of a recorded conversation for impeachment purposes was permissible, the admission of the entire conversation, including highly prejudicial discussions of murder plans, constituted reversible error requiring a new trial.
• United States v. Romo
  914 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 40×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no reversible error in jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, probable cause for search warrants, discovery denials, sentencing provisions, or sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Molinaro
  877 F.2d 1341· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 40×
  The court held that recorded conversations between co-conspirators were admissible as non-hearsay, drug paraphernalia was relevant to the conspiracy charge, and the search of an arrestee's wallet was a valid search incident to arrest.
• United States v. Paris
  827 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court should have excluded the out-of-court statements unless the government granted use immunity to the declarant, to ensure the defendant's right to a fair trial and confrontation.
• United States v. Miranda-Uriarte
  649 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the admission of coconspirator statements was proper, the evidence was sufficient to convict, and the trial court did not err in its rulings on jury instructions, evidence admission, or cross-examination.
• United States v. Alexander
  850 F.2d 1500· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-02 ·cited 39×
  Mail fraud convictions are reversed because the jury may have convicted based on the 'honest services' theory invalidated by McNally. RICO convictions are affirmed for Alexander but reversed for Grider due to insufficient predicate acts after the mail fraud reversal.
• United States v. Leroux
  738 F.2d 943· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 38×
  The court held that entrapment is unavailable as a matter of law when the inducement comes from a private citizen, not a government agent, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements was harmless error given the strong independent evidence of guilt.
• United States v. Luz-Estella Alvarez-Porras
  643 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1981-02-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial judge properly applied the Geaney standard to admit coconspirator statements and that evidence seized from Garcia-Perez's apartment need not be suppressed, even with initial Fourth Amendment violations.
• United States v. Pappas
  611 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 38×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for acquittal, admitting co-conspirator statements, or denying the motion for mistrial.
• United States v. Dorn
  561 F.2d 1252· 7th Cir.· 1977-08-31 ·cited 38×
  The court held that evidence of conspiratorial activity after January 1973 was admissible, co-conspirator statements were properly admitted, jury use of transcripts was permissible, mistrial denial was not an abuse of discretion, evidence was sufficient for conviction, and collat
• United States v. Garcia
  530 F.2d 650· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-21 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's prior inconsistent statement for impeachment purposes, even without a limiting instruction, did not constitute plain error when the statement was not overly damaging and the evidence of guilt was otherwise substantial. The c
• United States v. Silverman
  861 F.2d 571· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-16 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in admitting the extrajudicial statements of an alleged co-conspirator because the independent evidence presented was insufficient to corroborate those statements and establish the defendant's connection to the conspiracy by a preponde
• United States v. Zavala-Serra
  853 F.2d 1512· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that co-conspirator statements were admissible and that Zavala lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the statute as applied to others.