United States v. Goldberg
105 F.3d 770 (1997)

  • Lango and Clark were involved in a fraudulent scheme.
    • They made admissions that they were involved in the scheme.
    • FRE 801(d)(2)(E) says that a statement is not hearsay if it is a statement made by a co-conspirator of a party and made in furtherance of the conspiracy.
  • After the admissions were made, Goldberg joined as a co-conspirator.
  • Goldberg was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
  • At trial, the prosecution attempted to introduce Lango and Clark’s statements.
    • Goldberg objected on the ground that they were hearsay.
    • Goldberg argued that since he was not a member of the conspiracy at the time, and admissions made in furtherance of the conspiracy could not be used as evidence against him.
  • The Trial Judge allowed the evidence to be admitted.
  • The Trial Court found Goldberg guilty of fraud.  Goldberg appealed.
  • The Appellate Court affirmed.
    • The Appellate Court found that the co-conspirator argument didn’t make a lot of sense, but it was well established case law.  Therefore, Goldberg loses.