Van Riper v. United States
Facts
The prosecution charged the defendants with participating in a continuing scheme to sell Parco stock through fraudulent representations and mailings. Different defendants joined and left the enterprise at different times, but the court viewed the operation as one continuous scheme centered first in the Moore Street office and later in Ackerson's uptown office. At trial, the government introduced evidence of the scheme's acts and declarations, including statements by participants and telephone conversations with customers. Some defendants argued that the scheme was really several separate schemes, that evidence was insufficient as to them, and that declarations and telephone statements were improperly admitted.
Issue
In a prosecution for a continuing fraudulent scheme and conspiracy, when are acts and declarations of participants admissible against other defendants, especially those who joined late or withdrew early? Also, may telephone conversations be admitted when the speaker is identified by circumstances rather than definite voice recognition?
Rule
When persons join an unlawful agreement, they become ad hoc agents for one another, so acts and declarations made pursuant to the common purpose are competent against all members of the continuing scheme. A defendant who joins an existing scheme assumes responsibility for what was done before joining, but is not bound by acts or declarations occurring after good-faith withdrawal. Telephone conversations are sufficiently authenticated when surrounding circumstances make a prima facie showing of the speaker's identity, even if the witness cannot definitively recognize the voice.
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
Test yourself
Are the May and June mailings admissible against Nora?