Lango and Clark were involved in a fraudulent scheme.
They made admissions that they were involved in
the scheme.
FRE 801(d)(2)(E) says that a statement is not hearsay
if it is a statement made by a co-conspirator of a party and made in
furtherance of the conspiracy.
After the admissions were made, Goldberg joined as a
co-conspirator.
Goldberg was arrested on suspicion of fraud.
At trial, the prosecution attempted to introduce Lango and
Clark's statements.
Goldberg objected on the ground that they were hearsay.
Goldberg argued that since he was not a member of the
conspiracy at the time, and admissions made in furtherance of the
conspiracy could not be used as evidence against him.
The Trial Judge allowed the evidence to be admitted.
The Trial Court found Goldberg guilty of fraud. Goldberg
appealed.
The Appellate Court affirmed.
The Appellate Court found that the co-conspirator
argument didn't make a lot of sense, but it was well established case
law. Therefore, Goldberg loses.
