Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Evidence
479 U.S. 881 (1986)
Updated
Evidencecoconspirator statementsFederal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E)coconspirator declarationsindependent evidencequantum of proofreliabilitycertiorari limited
Facts
The provided text does not describe the underlying events of the prosecution. It shows only that the petitioner sought Supreme Court review of evidentiary questions involving the admission of an alleged coconspirator's declarations against a defendant. The questions concern whether a court must find a conspiracy and membership by independent evidence, what quantum of proof is required, and whether the court must assess reliability before admitting the statement.
Issue
Whether, before admitting an alleged coconspirator's statement against a defendant under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), a court must determine by independent evidence that a conspiracy existed and that both the declarant and defendant were members; if so, what quantum of independent proof is required; and whether the court must also determine that the statement bears sufficient indicia of reliability.
Rule
The provided text does not state a substantive rule. It states only that the Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to three questions concerning the foundational and reliability requirements for admitting coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a federal criminal case from Denver, Nolan Pierce asks the Supreme Court to review five evidentiary rulings involving recorded statements, expert testimony, and authentication. The Court grants certiorari, but its order says review is limited to two questions about the admission of alleged coconspirator statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E).
What is the strongest conclusion about what the grant of certiorari establishes?
Explanation. The majority text is only an order granting certiorari and expressly limiting review to specified questions. From that text, the only conclusion is that review is confined to the listed Rule 801(d)(2)(E) issues; the order does not resolve the merits or place other issues before the Court. (Derived from Bourjaily v. United States (1986).)