Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA))v.) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.) 2:10cr186-MHT MILTON E. McGREGOR,) (WO)THOMAS E. COKER,)LARRY P. MEANS,)JAMES E. PREUITT,)HARRI ANNE H. SMITH,)JARRELL W. WALKER, JR.,)and JOSEPH R. CROSBY)OPINIONDefendants Milton E. McGregor, Thomas E. Coker,Robert B. Geddie, Jr., Larry P. Means, James E. Preuitt,Quinton T. Ross, Jr., Harri Anne H. Smith, Jarrell W. Walker, Jr., and Joseph R. Crosby were charged in a 39-count indictment, which included charges of federal programs bribery, extortion, honest services mail andwire fraud, money laundering, making a false statement,obstruction of justice, and conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery. At the conclusion of the evidence, and as required bylaw, United States v. Hewes, 729 F.2d 1302, 1312 (11th
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT-WC Document 1916 Filed 10/20/11 Page 1 of 44
 
2Cir. 1984), the court made oral findings, with the promise that a written opinion would follow, that thegovernment had shown by a preponderance of the evidenceall of the requisites for the admissibility of the co-conspirator statements about which evidence has beenreceived against each defendant except Crosby.In the meantime, a jury found Geddie and Ross notguilty on all counts and found McGregor, Coker, Means,Preuitt, Smith, Walker, and Crosby not guilty on somecounts and was unable to reach a verdict on the remainingcounts; however, the admissibility of co-conspiratorstatements is still an issue for the retrial of the sevendefendants. Therefore, for purposes of the retrial ofthe seven defendants, this written opinion memorializesthe court’s oral findings, and further sets forth thereasons for the court’s conclusion that the governmenthas proven, except as to Crosby, the requisites for theadmissibility of these statements by a preponderance ofthe evidence.
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT-WC Document 1916 Filed 10/20/11 Page 2 of 44
 
3I.The existence of a conspiracy and the defendant’s participation in it are preliminary questions of factthat must be resolved by the court pursuant to Fed. R.Evid. 104(a) before a co-conspirator statement may beadmitted into evidence. Bourjaily v. United States, 483U.S. 171, 175 (1987). The court must apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard in determiningwhether such preliminary questions of fact have beenestablished under Rule 104(a). See id. at 176. Thecourt has discretion to require the government toestablish the elements of admissibility prior toreceiving co-conspirator statements, or, alternatively,to admit the out-of-court statements on the conditionthat the government subsequently produce independentevidence of the conspiracy. See United States v. Miller,664 F.2d 826, 827-28 (11th Cir. 1981).
Case 2:10-cr-00186-MHT-WC Document 1916 Filed 10/20/11 Page 3 of 44
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more