 |
studentJD |
|
|
Students Helping Students |
Currently Briefing & Updating |
|
Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests
Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission. In accordance with UCC § 2-316, this product is provided with "no warranties,either express or implied." The information contained is provided "as-is", with "no guarantee of merchantability." |
|
|
Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 |
Supreme Court of the United States |
1987 |
|
Chapter |
6 |
Title |
Hearsay |
|
Page |
193 |
Topic |
Hearsay Exceptions: Statements by Coconspirator |
|
Quick Notes |
FBI informant, Greathouse, arranged a drug sale with Lonardo. Lonardo would find distributors. Phone calls were recorded between the FBI informant, Lonardo and the petition. The out of court statements concerning the conspiracy to buy and distribute cocaine satisfied FRE 801(d)(2)(E).
o The US Supreme Court found that a Court does not need evidence independent of the statements themselves in order to conclude that a conspiracy existed. o Basically, a statement that a conspiracy exists can be admitted under the FRE 801(d)(2)(E) exception, even if no other independent evidence exists to prove the conspiracy. o The technical reason why this is allowed is that FRE 104(a) allows preliminary questions concerning admissibility to be determined by the Court. o Therefore, a court can decide to listen to the statements, decide if those statements show a conspiracy, and then admit them because they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Statements By Coconspirator 801(d)(2)(E) (d) Statements which are not hearsay.
Coconspirator Question Before a statement is admissible as a statement by a coconspirator, the court must make certain preliminary factual determinations. 1. Was there a conspiracy? 2. Was the declarant a member of the conspiracy? 3. Was the statement made while the conspiracy was in existence? 4. Was the statement made in furtherance of the conspiracy?
Court Reasoning o The out-of-court statements of Lonardo indicated that Lonardo was involved in a conspiracy with a "friend." o The statements indicated that the friend had agreed with Lonardo to buy a kilogram of cocaine and to distribute it. o The statements also revealed that the friend would be at the hotel parking lot, in his car, and would accept the cocaine from Greathouse's car after Greathouse gave Lonardo the keys. o Each one of Lonardo's statements may itself be unreliable, but taken as a whole, the entire conversation between Lonardo and Greathouse was corroborated by independent evidence |
||
|
Book Name |
Evidence: A Contemporary Approach. Sydney Beckman, Susan Crump, Fred Galves. ISBN: 978-0-314-19105-2. |
||
|
Issue |
1. Whether the court must determine by independent evidence that the conspiracy existed and that the defendant and the declarant were members of this conspiracy? No. 2. Whether the quantum of proof on which such determinations must be based? No. 3. Whether a court must in each case examine the circumstances of such a statement to determine its reliability? Yes. |
|
Procedure |
|
|
Trial |
o Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to 15 years. |
|
Appellant |
o The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that out-of-court telephone statements satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) to permit their admissibility as co-conspirator statements made in the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. |
|
Supreme |
o Affirm |
|
Facts |
Discussion |
Key Phrases |
Rules |
|
Pl Bourjaily Df United States
Informant arranged drug sell o FBI informant, Greathouse, arranged to sell cocaine to Lonardo. Lonardo finds distributors o Lonardo agreed to find individuals to distribute the drugs. Taped conversations o Lonardo stated in a tape-recorded telephone conversation that he had a "gentleman friend" who had some questions to ask about the cocaine. o In a subsequent telephone call, Greathouse spoke to the "friend" about the quality of the drug and the price. Drug buy was arranged o Greathouse then spoke again with Lonardo, and the two arranged the details of the purchase. o They agreed that the sale would take place in a designated hotel parking lot, and Lonardo would transfer the drug from Greathouse's car to the "friend," who would be waiting in the parking lot in his own car. o Greathouse proceeded with the transaction as planned o FBI agents arrested Lonardo and petitioner immediately after Lonardo placed a kilogram of cocaine into petitioner's car in the hotel parking lot. o In petitioner's car, the agents found over $ 20,000 in cash. |
The Government introduced o Angelo Lonardo's telephone statements regarding the participation of the "friend" in the transaction.
District Court Findings o In considering the events in the parking lot and Lonardo's statements over the telephone, the Government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy involving Lonardo and petitioner existed, and that Lonardo's statements over the telephone had been made in the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Petitioner Arg Bootstrapping (Phone call is inadmissible) o Allowing such statements of conspiracy to prove the existence of conspiracy was considered similar to bootstrapping. o Basically, Bourjaily argued that the phone call established the conspiracy, but since it was inadmissible you couldn't prove the conspiracy existed, and so the phone call was inadmissible. o This is known as the bootstrapping rule, because the evidence isn't allowed to pull itself up by its own bootstraps
Court Disagrees with Bootstrapping Argument o Rule 104 allows the trial judge to consider any evidence whatsoever, bound only by the rules of privilege. o It was the drafters intent to abolish bootstrapping.
Court Petitioner ignores two simple facts of evidentiary life 1. First, out-of-court statements are only presumed unreliable. The presumption may be rebutted by appropriate proof. 2. Second, individual pieces of evidence, insufficient in themselves to prove a point, may in cumulation prove it.
Court Reasoning o The out-of-court statements of Lonardo indicated that Lonardo was involved in a conspiracy with a "friend." o The statements indicated that the friend had agreed with Lonardo to buy a kilogram of cocaine and to distribute it. o The statements also revealed that the friend would be at the hotel parking lot, in his car, and would accept the cocaine from Greathouse's car after Greathouse gave Lonardo the keys. o Each one of Lonardo's statements may itself be unreliable, but taken as a whole, the entire conversation between Lonardo and Greathouse was corroborated by independent evidence.
Court Holding o It is sufficient for today to hold that HN12a court, in making a preliminary factual determination under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), may examine the hearsay statements sought to be admitted. o We hold that Lonardos out-of-court statements were properly admitted against the petitioner. o Affirmed |
||
|
Rules |
|
Bootstrapping o Allowing such statements of conspiracy to prove the existence of conspiracy was considered similar to bootstrapping.
Statements By Coconspirator 801(d)(2)(E) (d) Statements which are not hearsay.
Coconspirator Question Before a statement is admissible as a statement by a coconspirator, the court must make certain preliminary factual determinations. 1. Was there a conspiracy? 2. Was the declarant a member of the conspiracy? 3. Was the statement made while the conspiracy was in existence? 4. Was the statement made in furtherance of the conspiracy? |
|
Class Notes |
|
|