## Facts

- A federal grand jury indicted Curtis Reynolds and William Parran on three counts arising from a scheme involving a Pennsylvania unemployment compensation check.
- Count One charged conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 to (1) possess stolen mail (the check) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708 and (2) use the payee’s social security number to cash it in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(g).
- Counts Two and Three charged the substantive offenses that were the objects of the conspiracy.
- Immediately before trial, Reynolds pleaded guilty to Counts Two and Three; he was tried only on the conspiracy count, while Parran was tried on all three counts.
- A postal inspector testified that, after arrest and in Parran’s presence, Reynolds said to Parran: “I didn’t tell them anything about you.”
- The government offered the statement against Parran, asserting it was not offered for its literal truth but to show the statement was made and to support the existence of a conspiracy and Parran’s participation.
- The jury convicted Parran on all counts, and convicted Reynolds on the conspiracy count.

## Issues

1. Whether admitting the postal inspector’s testimony about Reynolds’ post-arrest statement against Parran in a joint trial was improper hearsay and reversible error.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Parran’s motion to sever his trial from Reynolds’.
3. Whether Parran’s written statement was properly admitted and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed Parran’s convictions and remanded.
- The court held Reynolds’ statement, as used against Parran, was prejudicial hearsay; admitting it to prove Parran’s participation in the conspiracy and substantive offenses was reversible error.
- The court upheld admission of Parran’s own written statement.
- The court concluded that, without the improper admission of Reynolds’ statement, severance was not necessary to ensure a fair trial.
- The court held the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the government, was sufficient to support a verdict against Parran.

## Legal Principles

- An out-of-court statement is not hearsay only when its relevance depends solely on the fact that it was made, not on the truth of what it asserts.
- A statement cannot be treated as non-hearsay by labeling it “not offered for truth” when, in context, its probative force depends on an implied assertion that the defendant participated in criminal conduct.
- Admission of a non-testifying co-defendant’s out-of-court statement that functionally incriminates another defendant can be prejudicial and require reversal when it materially contributes to proving guilt.
- Joint trials are generally permissible, and severance is not required absent a showing that joinder, as tried, prevents a fair determination of guilt.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit reversed Parran’s convictions because the government used a co-defendant’s post-arrest assurance—offered through an agent—to imply Parran’s guilt, making it hearsay in context and unfairly prejudicial; other challenges (to Parran’s own statement, severance absent the hearsay error, and sufficiency of the evidence) did not warrant reversal.


United States v. Reynolds, 715 F.2d 99 (3d Cir. 1983)