RUSH MEADOWS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (21 total)

• Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171 (U.S. 1987)
  …tnership in crime.’ What one does pursuant to their common purpose, all do, and, as declarations may be such acts, they are competent against all.” Van Riper v. United States, 13 F. 2d 961, 967 (CA2), cert. denied sub nom. Ackerson v. United States, 273 U. S. 702 (1926). Each of the components of this common-law exemption, in turn, had an agency justification. To fall within the exemption, the co-conspirator’s statement had to be made “in furtherance of” the conspiracy, a requirement that arose from the age…
• United States v. Borelli, 336 F.2d 376 (2d Cir. 1964)
  …ng in the conspiracy would be barred in any event by the requirement that these be in furtherance of the conspiracy and not be merely narrative. Van Riper v. United States, 13 F. 2d 961, 967 (2 Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Ackerson v. United States, 273 U.S. 702, 47 S.Ct. 102, 71 L.Ed. 848 (1926); United States v. Goodman, 129 F. 2d 1009, 1013 (2 Cir. 1942); United States v. Annunziato, 293 F. 2d 373, 380 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 919, 82 S.Ct. 240, 7 L.Ed.2d 134 (1961); to the extent they would not…
• United States v. McMILLAN, 508 F.2d 101 (8th Cir. 1974)
  …rise to the recording. However, “in view of the identity between the scenario arranged on the telephone and that subsequently enacted, the case would come within the principle of Van Riper v. United States, 13 F. 2d 961, 968 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 273 U.S. 702, 47 S.Ct. 102, 71 L.Ed. 848 (1926), that in some instances ‘the substance of the communication may itself be enough to make prima facie proof.’ ” United States v. Bonanno, supra, 487 F. 2d at 659. We therefore conclude that a proper foundation was l…