U.S. v. Davis

In prosecution on charge that defendant used extortionate means to collect on $300,000 defaulted loan, Dist. Ct. did not err in admitting recorded telephone calls from three individuals who discussed details about plan to carry out physical assault on individual who had defaulted on loan. Said conversations qualified under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) as admissible co-conspirators statements, and Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that govt. had failed to establish that he was member of said conspiracy, where evidence showed that: (1) someone with defendant’s first name (Mikey) wanted victim’s legs broken, and that group had formed to carry out said attack; (2) defendant admitted to losing $200,000 on said loan and that he was “extremely pissed off” about said loss; (3) defendant had confronted victim about defaulted loan and asked personal questions about victim’s family; (4) defendant placed numerous phone calls to group members; and (5) one member of group provided physical description of “Mikey” that matched defendant’s physical appearance. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in allowing govt. to impeach its own witness with inconsistent statements witness had given to police, since: (1) Rule 607 allows parties to impeach their own witnesses; and (2) defendant failed to show that govt. called said witness in bad faith in effort to expose jury to said statements, where witness had provided other favorable testimony to govt.