Under Rule 801(d)(2), which describes an opposing party's statement admissible as not hearsay?

Under Rule 801(d)(2), which describes an opposing party's statement admissible as not hearsay?

• A. It was made by the party's agent on a matter outside the scope of the relationship.
• B. It was made by the party's coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
• C. It was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
• D. It was made by a witness while testifying.

Answer: (B)

The main point is that a statement made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy is not hearsay when offered against a party opponent. This is a specific exception to hearsay because the speaker is part of the same illegal plan, and statements made to carry out or advance the conspiracy are deemed reliable enough to be used against all members. So if one conspirator tells another, “we’re going to commit the fraud tonight,” that remark can be admitted as not hearsay against the other conspirators, even if the truth of the statement is what is at issue, because it was made in the course of pursuing the shared goal. Context helps: the rule rests on the idea that conspirators are mutually aligned, so communications made to advance the plan are inherently part of the conspiracy’s evidence. This is different from a party’s agent speaking about something within the agent’s scope of authority, which can also be admitted as not hearsay under a different subsection, but only if the relationship and scope conditions are met. It’s also not about a statement by a witness while testifying, which would involve other rules about prior statements, and it isn’t simply a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter without relying on the conspiratorial connection.

The main point is that a statement made by a coconspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy is not hearsay when offered against a party opponent. This is a specific exception to hearsay because the speaker is part of the same illegal plan, and statements made to carry out or advance the conspiracy are deemed reliable enough to be used against all members. So if one conspirator tells another, “we’re going to commit the fraud tonight,” that remark can be admitted as not hearsay against the other conspirators, even if the truth of the statement is what is at issue, because it was made in the course of pursuing the shared goal.

Context helps: the rule rests on the idea that conspirators are mutually aligned, so communications made to advance the plan are inherently part of the conspiracy’s evidence. This is different from a party’s agent speaking about something within the agent’s scope of authority, which can also be admitted as not hearsay under a different subsection, but only if the relationship and scope conditions are met. It’s also not about a statement by a witness while testifying, which would involve other rules about prior statements, and it isn’t simply a statement offered to prove the truth of the matter without relying on the conspiratorial connection.