## Facts

- Fuat Yildiz was prosecuted in the Southern District of New York for conspiring to violate the Hobbs Act based on a plan to rob jewelry merchants in New Jersey.
- The government’s case relied substantially on recorded conversations among Yildiz, co-defendants, and a cooperating informant.
- In one recorded exchange, Yildiz was not present at a meeting of alleged co-conspirators; afterward, the informant told agents “Yeah, everybody, everybody talk,” following a remark that “Everybody showed up.”
- Yildiz sought to introduce the informant’s statement as substantively exculpatory evidence, arguing it suggested he was not part of the conspiracy because he did not attend the meeting.
- The district court excluded the informant’s statement when offered for its truth as an admission by a party opponent attributable to the United States.
- Yildiz was convicted, and he appealed the exclusion of the statement.

## Issues

1. Whether a criminal defendant may offer a government agent’s or informant’s out-of-court statement for its truth as an admission by a party opponent against the United States under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) or related common-law principles.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and the evidentiary ruling.
- The court held that a government agent’s out-of-court statements are not admissible for their truth as admissions by a party opponent against the United States in a criminal prosecution.
- The court concluded the informant’s recorded remark could not be treated as a binding admission of the sovereign and was properly excluded when offered substantively.

## Legal Principles

- In a criminal prosecution, out-of-court statements by government agents or informants are not admissible for their truth as admissions of the United States merely because the speaker acted for, or cooperated with, the government.
- The sovereign is not bound in criminal cases by ordinary agency-based admissions doctrine applicable to private parties; government agents are historically unable to bind the sovereign through hearsay admissions.
- Prior circuit precedent barring substantive use of government-agent out-of-court statements as “evidence of a fact” remains controlling, notwithstanding Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2).

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed Yildiz’s conviction and held that, in criminal cases, defendants may not introduce government agents’ or informants’ out-of-court statements for their truth as admissions against the United States, even when the statements concern matters within the speaker’s role in the investigation.


United States v. Yildiz, 355 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004)