Evidence Question Forum

[bigrob24]

A man is a defendant in a criminal trial for murdering his brother by strangulation in his sleep, a police officer testifies that another defendant's brother told him after the murder that they had conspired to kill their brother and the defendant had agreed to perform the killing by strangling rather than shooting because it would be too messy. Would this officer's statement be admissable hearsay under 801(d)(2)(a)?

[random5483]

I am taking evidence this semester so don't quote me.


The evidence would not be admissible in federal courts under FRCP 801(d)(2). The co-conspirator exception only applies to statements made during the conspiracy (statements made before the accused joins the conspiracy can be admissible as well). Statements made after the conspiracy (i.e. future statements) are not admissible.

[Renzo]

I am taking evidence this semester so don't quote me.


The evidence would not be admissible in federal courts under FRCP 801(d)(2). The co-conspirator exception only applies to statements made during the conspiracy (statements made before the accused joins the conspiracy can be admissible as well). Statements made after the conspiracy (i.e. future statements) are not admissible.

Yep. Except it's FRE 801(d)(2). The statement must have been made 1) in furtherance of, and 2) during the course of the conspiracy. There's also a hearsay within hearsay within hearsay problem that I can't analyze because I don't know who "he" refers to, but I don't see a way around it in any case.