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. Raymond
  793 F.2d 928· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting a co-conspirator's statement and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Grandison
  780 F.2d 425· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the admission of photographs, restrictions on a self-represented defendant's movements, the government's use of peremptory challenges, the admission of grand jury testimony, the admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and the e
• United States v. Simpson
  709 F.2d 903· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence challenged by the appellant, finding that the evidence was either part of the conspiracy, admissible under evidentiary rules for impeachment or intent, or harmless error.
• Mendelovitz v. Adolph Coors Co. & Highland Coors Distribs., Inc.
  693 F.2d 570· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present substantial evidence of anticompetitive impact to support his antitrust claims under federal and Texas law, and that collateral estoppel did not apply due to a change in legal standards.
• United States v. Montgomery
  582 F.2d 514· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-29 ·cited 12×
  The court held that even if a letter could be admissible under the statement against interest exception, the failure to raise this argument at trial precludes finding error on appeal.
• United States v. Isabel
  945 F.2d 1193· 1st Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the amendment of the indictment's statutory citation was not prejudicial, the admission of certain testimony was proper, the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, and the sentencing decision was not erroneous.
• United States v. Pitocchelli
  830 F.2d 401· 1st Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and that the trial court did not err in limiting cross-examination or in its jury instructions.
• United States v. Arambula-Ruiz
  987 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1993-03-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of a prior drug conviction for knowledge and intent was proper under Rule 404(b), and co-conspirator statements were admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E); errors in admitting prior arrests were harmless, and no Bruton error occurred.
• United States v. Ramirez
  963 F.2d 693· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for most defendants, but vacated and remanded one defendant's sentence due to missing findings. The court found no reversible error in the admission of statements, business cards, witness testimony, or in rulings regarding mistrials, j
• United States v. Nichols
  910 F.2d 419· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in modifying the pattern jury instruction regarding the substantive law of conspiracy, as the modification was consistent with Supreme Court precedent and circuit law.
• United States v. Womochil
  778 F.2d 1311· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence obtained through wiretaps and oral communications, nor in admitting certain hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception, and that alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not warrant a mistrial.
• United States v. Armand Mucci
  630 F.2d 737· 10th Cir.· 1980-08-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict of guilt for conspiracy and interstate transportation of stolen property, and that the trial court did not err in admitting certain testimony or denying motions for acquittal and a new trial.
• United States v. England
  966 F.2d 403· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed convictions and sentences for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, finding sufficient evidence, proper admission of co-conspirator statements, and correct application of Sentencing Guidelines.
• United States v. de Ortiz
  883 F.2d 515· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-16 ·cited 8×
  The court's use of 'slight evidence' or 'slight connection' language in conspiracy cases is problematic and should be reexamined or discarded in favor of clearer formulations.
• United States v. Roberts
  811 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 8×
  Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(A) applies only to statements made by the defendant, not co-conspirators, and discovery of co-conspirator statements is governed by the Jencks Act.
• United States v. Walker
  796 F.2d 43· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions regarding Wharton's Rule, notice under CIPA, sufficiency of evidence for espionage, admissibility of co-conspirator statements, and overall sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. Guerro
  693 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the admission of co-conspirator statements was proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction.
• United States v. Magnuson
  680 F.2d 56· 8th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that guilty pleas waived objections to suppression motions, and that the trial court properly admitted evidence and imposed sentence.
• United States v. Dockins
  659 F.2d 15· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the co-conspirator's statements were admissible because there was substantial independent evidence connecting the defendant to the conspiracy.
• United States v. Tamez
  941 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2) applies to knowingly making a building available for drug distribution, not just 'crack houses,' and that co-conspirator statements were properly admitted. However, the court reversed the sentencing enhancement for being an organizer.
• United States v. Reynolds
  828 F.2d 46· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of a co-conspirator's statement was proper and the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
• United States v. Laszlo Szabo
  789 F.2d 1484· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony, as direct testimony does not require a trustworthiness hearing, and the admitted co-conspirator statements were not crucial or devastating and had sufficient indicia of reliability.
• United States v. Gutierrez
  576 F.2d 269· 10th Cir.· 1978-05-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts against Gutierrez and Zamora for conspiracy to distribute heroin, and that the trial court did not err in admitting challenged evidence or denying severance.
• United States v. DeVILLIO
  983 F.2d 1185· 2d Cir.· 1993-01-21 ·cited 5×
  The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain evidence or in denying the motion for severance, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements did not violate Bruton.
• United States v. Schleicher
  862 F.2d 1320· 8th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in admitting co-conspirator testimony and evidence of other crimes, and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. LIM
  984 F.2d 331· 9th Cir.· 1993-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the admission of drug courier profile evidence was an error, it was harmless due to sufficient other evidence, and that the admission of co-conspirator statements, amendment of the indictment, denial of continuance, and finding of probable cause were all
• United States v. Gwain Collins
  966 F.2d 1214· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Collins was a member of the charged conspiracy and that any variance between the indictment and the proof was not prejudicial.
• United States v. Montour
  944 F.2d 1019· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of conspiracy to impede search warrants and of forcibly impeding search warrants, and that the trial court did not err in refusing to strike overt acts from the indictment or in excluding certain testimony.
• United States v. Gessa
  944 F.2d 265· 6th Cir.· 1991-08-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the prior panel decision and judgment are vacated, and the case is restored to the docket for en banc rehearing.
• United States v. Brown
  940 F.2d 1090· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting tape-recorded co-conspirator statements and that sufficient evidence supported the conviction.
• United States v. Garcia
  893 F.2d 188· 8th Cir.· 1990-01-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that statements made by a co-conspirator to a third party and to a security guard were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) as statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• United States v. Wali
  860 F.2d 588· 3d Cir.· 1988-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the admission of exculpatory statements of a co-conspirator for impeachment purposes under Fed.R.Evid. 806.
• United States v. Sixto Mescaine-Perez
  849 F.2d 53· 2d Cir.· 1988-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The denial of a motion to reduce a sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35 is affirmed because the sentencing court's view of the defendant's role as a leader or source was not based on misinformation and was supported by sufficient unchallenged evidence.
• United States v. Greer
  806 F.2d 556· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to sequester the jury, excluding a prior recorded statement, or in its handling of a defense witness, and affirmed the conviction.
• United States v. Johnson
  801 F.2d 597· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-16 ·cited 4×
  The appeal from a civil contempt order is dismissed as moot because the contempt sentence expired before the appeal was heard, and the claim of absolute immunity is not capable of repetition yet evading review.
• United States v. Robinson
  783 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a defendant's unsworn statement to the jury, made with counsel's consent, does not constitute a waiver of counsel, and that the trial court did not err in balancing the right to impeach co-conspirators against the risk of prejudice to defendants.
• United States v. Coco
  926 F.2d 759· 8th Cir.· 1991-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the admission of a co-defendant's taped statements was proper as an admission of a party opponent, and that any Bruton or Bell issues were either waived or not plain error.
• E.W. French & Sons, Inc. v. Gen. Portland Inc.
  885 F.2d 1392· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in striking co-conspirator statements under an outdated standard and in its jury instruction regarding a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor. It also found the district court abused its discretion regarding the authentication and prob
• United States v. Misle BUS & Equip. Co.
  967 F.2d 1227· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-26
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's guilty verdicts for conspiracy to suppress competition, and that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or sentencing.
• United States v. Ervin Jahue Blevins
  960 F.2d 1252· 4th Cir.· 1992-03-31
  The introduction of testimony that six non-testifying co-defendants pleaded guilty constituted error, but this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Rodrigo Vasquez
  903 F.2d 1400· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-22
  The court held that the admission of threats made by a co-conspirator during the course of the conspiracy was not reversible error, and that sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction.
• United States v. Dugan
  902 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-15
  The admission of co-conspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) does not violate the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, and sufficient evidence existed to support the mail fraud convictions.
• United States v. White
  868 F.2d 305· 8th Cir.· 1989-02-27
  The court held that incriminating statements made by the defendant before indictment, even if elicited by a government informant, are admissible as party admissions under the Federal Rules of Evidence and do not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.