## Facts

- Joseph Inadi was prosecuted in federal court for conspiring to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine and related offenses.
- Federal agents lawfully intercepted and recorded conversations among alleged members of the conspiracy.
- The prosecution introduced taped statements of an unindicted co-conspirator (Lazaro) against Inadi under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) as statements made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
- Inadi objected that admitting Lazaro’s statements violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause because the Government had not shown Lazaro was unavailable to testify.
- The district court admitted the statements upon finding Rule 801(d)(2)(E) satisfied; Lazaro was subpoenaed but did not appear, and the court overruled renewed Confrontation Clause objections.
- The Third Circuit reversed, holding the Confrontation Clause required the Government to show the declarant’s unavailability before admitting the out-of-court co-conspirator statements.

## Issues

1. Whether the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause requires the Government to show a non-testifying co-conspirator declarant is unavailable before admitting the declarant’s out-of-court statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit.
- The Court held the Confrontation Clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition to admitting a non-testifying co-conspirator’s out-of-court statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
- The Court rejected extending Ohio v. Roberts to impose an unavailability requirement on co-conspirator statements, distinguishing prior testimony (a substitute for live testimony) from co-conspirator statements (not a substitute).
- The Court reasoned co-conspirator statements often have evidentiary value tied to their context and contemporaneity during the conspiracy that later in-court testimony cannot replicate.
- The Court concluded an unavailability prerequisite would yield minimal confrontation benefits while imposing substantial burdens on criminal prosecutions.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause does not impose a categorical unavailability requirement for admission of co-conspirator statements under Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E).
- Ohio v. Roberts’ unavailability analysis applies to prior testimony offered as a substitute for live testimony, not to all out-of-court statements, and not to co-conspirator statements admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).
- Co-conspirator statements admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) are treated as substantively admissible when made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy; satisfying the Rule does not require an additional constitutional showing of unavailability.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that the Government may admit a non-testifying co-conspirator’s statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) without first proving the declarant is unavailable, limiting Roberts’ unavailability requirement to contexts where prior testimony is used as a substitute for live testimony.


United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387 (1986)