Legal Opinion
Bourjaily v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 23, 1987No. 85-6725PublishedCited by 2,352 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Rehnquist
Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E) provides: “A statement is not hearsay if. . . [t]he statement is offered against a party and is ... a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” We granted certiorari to answer three questions regarding the admission of statements under Rule 801(d)(2)(E): (1) whether the court must determine by independent evidence that the conspiracy existed and that the defendant and the declarant were members of this conspiracy; (2) the quantum of proof on which such determinations must be based; and (3) whether a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Glasser v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. MatlockSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2,352 opinions
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- United States v. Ilario M.A. ZanninoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Huddleston v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
2,347 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.