Discuss the co-conspirator rule and provide an example
What will be an ideal response?
Most courts have held that statements by co-conspirators are not "testimonial", and thus are not subject to the Confrontation Clause's requirement the defendant have an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the person who made the statement. Courts denying claims that the Confrontation Clause applies to co-conspirator statements reason that such statements are not made for the purpose of establishing or proving the contents of the statement. An example would be when A and B are engaged in a conspiracy to import and sell illegal drugs. While acting in furtherance of the conspiracy, A states to C, "B sold the cocaine from the last shipment.". A's statement is not hearsay as an admission of a co-conspirator and is admissible in B's prosecution.
You might also like to view...
Pragmatic validity is more of a logical, theoretical pro cedure rather than an empirical one
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
The rate of robbery in the United States is highest in the
A. West. B. South. C. Northeast. D. Midwest.
What are the two requirements for a crime to occur?
a. actus reus and mens rea b. a voluntary act and a criminal thought c. actus rea and mens reus d. a criminal intent and opportunity
Which of the following individuals are more likely to believe they receive fair treatment?
a. women b. minorities c. young adults d. juveniles