law

TTTBE #48: Early Answer for Patrons!

Added 2017-11-06 13:50:06 +0000 UTC

This was a pretty straightforward question about when a co-conspirator's statements are independently admissible (apart from having the co-conspirator testify, of course). This is another exception-to-the-hearsay-rules question.

Thomas analyzed this question exactly correctly in order to arrive at the right answer, "D," which is that under Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 801(d)(2), the prosecutor must show: (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) that the statement was made by a co-conspirator of a party, (3) it was made during the course of the conspiracy, and (4) it was made in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Here, the driver's statement does not meet the standards for admissibility under FRE 801(d)(2) because it was not made "in furtherance of the conspiracy."

The other answers here didn't really address the key issue; (A) is wrong because the driver isn't a "party opponent" in the trial of only the first and second guys. (B) is wrong because there's no general rule allowing hearsay if it's a "statement against the interests of the other defendants," and (C) is wrong because there's no such rule that statements made in custody are unreliable.

Thomas got this answer correct and is now 28-for-48 (58.3%) and is streaking towards that D- mark!