Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

As determined court administrators reopen courtrooms retrofitted for COVID-era jury trials, a growing backlog of complex criminal trials are starting to move forward. Despite all of the changes to the physical layout of courtrooms hosting these trials, one feature of many of these trials will seem quite familiar—the government’s reliance on co-conspirator statements to win cases. Whether the charges at issue involve allegations of CARES Act fraud, insider trading, securities fraud, public corruption, or narcotics trafficking, prosecutors will likely continue to make their cases on the backs of witnesses who never step foot in the courtroom.

Co-conspirator statements, whether introduced at trial by cooperating witnesses or through agents testifying about emails and texts, are admissible because they are not considered hearsay evidence under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). To the dismay of the defense, this evidence is often presented under circumstances where defendants cannot challenge its integrity or meaning since no witness with first-hand knowledge of the statement appears in court.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Dig Deeper


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.