United States v. Inadi

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Evidence

475 U.S. 387 (1986)

Updated August 1, 2026

Evidencecoconspirator statementsunavailabilityConfrontation ClauseRule 801(d)(2)(E)co-conspirator statementshearsayprior testimony

Facts

At respondent's trial for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine, the Government introduced recorded telephone conversations among alleged co-conspirators. The trial court found the statements were made by conspirators during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy and admitted them under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). Respondent objected on Confrontation Clause grounds, arguing that the statements were inadmissible unless the Government showed the declarants were unavailable. The Government subpoenaed declarant John Lazaro, but he did not appear, and the trial court still admitted the statements.

Issue

Does the Confrontation Clause require the Government to prove that a nontestifying co-conspirator is unavailable to testify before admitting that co-conspirator's out-of-court statements, where those statements otherwise satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E)?

Rule

The Confrontation Clause does not require a showing that a nontestifying co-conspirator is unavailable as a prerequisite to admitting the co-conspirator's out-of-court statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The unavailability requirement recognized in prior Confrontation Clause cases applies to prior testimony, not to co-conspirator statements generally.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal drug-conspiracy trial in Detroit, prosecutors offer recordings of Dana Ortiz telling another alleged conspirator where to deliver precursor chemicals later that night. The trial judge finds the statements were made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of it under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E), but the government never tries to call Ortiz at trial.

The defendant objects that the Sixth Amendment bars admission unless the government first proves Ortiz was unavailable. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that the Confrontation Clause does not impose an independent unavailability requirement for co-conspirator statements admitted under Rule 801(d)(2)(E). The unavailability analysis discussed in prior cases was tied to former testimony used as a substitute for live testimony, not to co-conspirator statements made during and in furtherance of a conspiracy.