Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

01-3975 U.S. v. Gajo

By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//

01-3975 U.S. v. Gajo

By: dmc-admin//May 28, 2002//

Listen to this article

“As a general proposition, the statements of a non-conspirator are not admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) … However, this is not a case where the district court admitted Smith’s statements as non-hearsay, but rather to provide context to a coconspirator’s statements properly admitted under Rule 801. It is well settled that such an approach is appropriate because statements are not hearsay to the extent they are offered for context and not for the truth of the truth of the matter asserted. … Thus, while it is true that a district court should exercise great caution when admitting a non-conspirator’s statements to provide context to admissible declarations, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case. The district court included only those statements necessary to provide meaning to Baumgart’s responses and redacted the non-germane and unduly prejudicial aspects of the Baumgart-Smith conversations.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Gottschall, J., Flaum, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests