Bourjaily v. United States 483 U.S. 171, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) Greathouse was an FBI informant.  He agreed to sell some cocaine to Lonardo in a sting operation. Lonardo told Greathouse that he had a 'friend' interested in buying the cocaine.  Greathouse later spoke to the 'friend' over the telephone about the deal. Greathouse testified that the 'friend' was Bourjaily. Lonardo met Greathouse in a parking lot and put the cocaine into Bourjaily's car.  Both were immediately arrested for drug possession. At trial, the prosecution introduced the phone call between Bourjaily and Lonardo into evidence. Bourjaily objected on the grounds that the conversation was hearsay. The prosecution countered that the conversation was not hearsay because it met the met the FRE 801(d)(2)(E) exception because they were statements made by a co-conspirator during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Bourjaily countered that the prosecution could not establish that a conspiracy existed between Bourjaily and Lonardo existed, so the exception did not apply. Basically, Bourjaily argued that the phone call established the conspiracy, but since it was inadmissible you couldn't prove the conspiracy existed, and so the phone call was inadmissible. Kinda like a Catch-22. This is known as the bootstrapping rule, because the evidence isn't allowed to pull itself up by its own bootstraps The Trial Judge allowed the evidence to be admitted. The Trial Judge found that the statements Lonardo made in the phone call, and the incident in the parking lot were enough to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a conspiracy existed. The Trial Court found Bourjaily guilty of drug possession.  He appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed.  Bourjaily appealed. The US Supreme Court affirmed. The US Supreme Court found that a Court does not need evidence independent of the statements themselves in order to conclude that a conspiracy existed. Basically, a statement that a conspiracy exists can be admitted under the FRE 801(d)(2)(E) exception, even if no other independent evidence exists to prove the conspiracy. The technical reason why this is allowed is that FRE 104(a) allows preliminary questions concerning admissibility to be determined by the Court.  Therefore, a court can decide to listen to the statements, decide if those statements show a conspiracy, and then admit them because they were made in furtherance of the conspiracy. The decision in this case reversed the pre-FRE common law, which used the bootstrapping rule to exclude evidence that was not backed up by independent evidence.