How do statements of co-conspirators operate under Rule 801(d)(2)(E)?

• A. A statement made by a co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy, while the conspiracy was in effect, is admissible against the other conspirators.
• B. Only statements made after the conspiracy ends are admissible.
• C. Any statement by a co-conspirator is admissible.
• D. Co-conspirator statements require independent corroboration.

Answer: (C)

Under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), statements by a co-conspirator are not hearsay when they are made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy and while the conspiracy is in existence. This means the statement can be admitted against other conspirators because it is considered part of the conspiracy’s operate-and-plan dynamics, not just an ordinary out-of-court assertion.

For this to apply, you need to show that a conspiracy existed, that the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered were members of that conspiracy at the time, and that the statement was made during the conspiracy and to advance its goals. If those conditions are met, the statement is admissible as non-hearsay against the other conspirators. Statements made after the conspiracy ends, or statements by a co-conspirator that don’t relate to the conspiracy’s aims, don’t fit this rule. There’s no requirement that the proponent offer independent corroboration to admit these statements; the key is showing the conspiratorial context and timing. For example, a co-conspirator’s statement made during planning that directly furthers the plan can be admitted against the other conspirators, but a casual remark after the fact or a remark unrelated to the conspiracy would not.