United States v. Inadi

475 U.S. 387 (1986)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D sought to exclude the recorded statements of the unindicted co-conspirators on the ground that they did not satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). D also objected to the admission of the statements on Confrontation Clause grounds, contending that they were inadmissible absent a showing that the declarants were unavailable. The District Court held that the statements satisfied Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and admitted the statements, conditioned on the prosecution's commitment to produce Lazaro. The Government subpoenaed Lazaro, but he failed to appear, and D made no effort to secure his presence. The court then overruled D's renewed Confrontation Clause objections, holding that the statements were admissible because they satisfied the co-conspirator rule. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding, in reliance on Ohio v. Roberts, that although Rule 801(d)(2)(E) had been satisfied, the Confrontation Clause established an independent requirement that the Government, as a condition to admission of any out-of-court statements, must show the declarant's unavailability. D's conviction was reversed. P appealed.