DOJ-OGR-00006957.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 456 Filed 11/12/21 Page5of10 Page 5 made also be a member.” Jn re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 139 (2d Cir. 2008). With respect to the second prong of this rule, a statement is in furtherance of a conspiracy if it was in some way designed to promote or facilitate achievement of a goal of the conspiracy. Under this standard, a co-conspirator statement is admissible if it “reasonably [can] be interpreted as encouraging a co-conspirator or other person to advance the conspiracy, or as enhancing a co- conspirator or other person’s usefulness to the conspiracy.” United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1412 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Thus, statements are in furtherance of the conspiracy if they: (1) inform or provide an update as to the status or progress of the conspiracy, see United States v. Desena, 260 F.3d 150, 158 (2d Cir. 2001); (2) “prompt the listener . . . to respond in a way that promotes or facilitates the carrying out of a criminal activity,” Maldonado-Rivera, 922 F.2d at 958; (3) “seek to induce a co-conspirator’s assistance,” Desena, 260 F.3d at 158; (4) “provide reassurance,” id.; (5) “serve to foster trust and cohesiveness,” id.; United States v. Simmons, 923 F.2d 934, 945 (2d Cir. 1991); (6) “facilitate and protect” the conspiratorial activities, United States v. Diaz, 176 F.3d 52, 87 (2d Cir. 1999); or (7) inform a co-conspirator of “the identity and activities of his coconspirators,” United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 837 (2d Cir. 1989); United States v. Rahme, 813 F.2d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1987). B. Discussion Both proffered statements are admissible as non-hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The first exemplar qualifies as a co-conspirator statement under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), and the second exemplar is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Accordingly, both are admissible at trial. DOJ-OGR-00006957