## Facts

- Alexander Garcia (Alexander) was charged in federal court with conspiracy to import counterfeit U.S. currency into the United States and related offenses involving possession of counterfeit bills.
- At Alexander’s trial, the government offered two out-of-court statements made by Alexander’s son, Dante Garcia (Dante), whom the government alleged was Alexander’s coconspirator.
- First statement (to Rolito): Dante’s son, Rolito Garcia (Rolito), testified that after Dante and Rolito attempted to pay two prostitutes with counterfeit money, Dante told Rolito that “the money was not real,” and that only Alexander, Dante, and Rolito knew about the money.
- Second statement (to security guard): After Dante attempted to use a counterfeit bill at a store and the bill was refused, a mall security guard became involved. To avoid being held by the guard, Dante stated that he had given the refused bill to Alexander.
- The district court admitted both statements against Alexander as nonhearsay coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
- A jury convicted Alexander. On appeal, Alexander argued that Dante’s statements were improperly admitted because they were not made “in furtherance” of any conspiracy.

## Issues

1. Did the district court err by admitting Dante’s statements against Alexander under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) on the ground that they were not made during and in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy?
2. Did the government prove by a preponderance of the evidence the foundational facts required for Rule 801(d)(2)(E)—that a conspiracy existed and that both Dante (the declarant) and Alexander (the defendant) were members?

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed Alexander’s conviction.
- The court held that the district court did not err in admitting Dante’s statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
- The court concluded that the government established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a conspiracy existed and that both Dante and Alexander participated in it.
- The court further concluded that Dante’s statements—including the statement to the mall security guard—were made during the course of, and in furtherance of, the conspiracy because they were aimed at limiting detection and shifting suspicion so the scheme could continue.

## Legal Principles

- Under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), a statement is not hearsay if it is offered against a party and was made by the party’s coconspirator during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- Before admitting a statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), the trial court must find by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) a conspiracy existed, (2) the defendant and the declarant were members, and (3) the statement was made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- The trial judge makes these preliminary findings under Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a).
- A statement may satisfy the “in furtherance” requirement when it is intended to help accomplish the conspiracy’s objectives, including by avoiding detection, deflecting suspicion, or protecting conspirators so the unlawful activity can proceed.
- On appeal, the trial court’s preliminary fact findings are reviewed for clear error, and the ultimate evidentiary ruling admitting coconspirator statements is reviewed with deference.

## Conclusion

United States of America v. Garcia held that the district court properly admitted two statements by an alleged coconspirator (Dante) under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), including a statement to a mall security guard claiming Dante had passed the refused counterfeit bill to Alexander; because the statements were made while the counterfeit-money scheme was ongoing and were aimed at limiting detection and shifting blame, the Eighth Circuit affirmed Alexander’s conviction.


United States of America v. Garcia, 893 F.2d 188 (1990)