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.