FAIRFAX

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313 (6th Cir. 1988)
  …that because the evidence was offered not by the government but by a codefendant, it was not offered against a party opponent and thus does not fall within the scope of the rule. In United States v. Palow, 777 F. 2d 52 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1052, 106 S.Ct. 1277, 89 L.Ed.2d 585 (1986), the court concluded that testimony from one defendant regarding another defendant’s prior statements during the course of a conspiracy was properly admitted pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 801. The admission, accordin…
• United States v. Kaplan, 832 F.2d 676 (1st Cir. 1987)
  …e the objectives of the conspiracy have been accomplished, any declarations regarding efforts to conceal the conspiracy are inadmissible. Id. at 442, 69 S.Ct. at 717-18; see also United States v. Palow, 777 F. 2d 52, 57 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1052, 106 S.Ct. 1277, 89 L.Ed.2d 585 (1986) (post-arrest statements not in furtherance of the conspiracy). Such is not the case before us however. Even if the doctors maintained “accurate” medical records to avoid getting caught, their actions clearly fu…
• Kassel v. Gannett Co., Inc., 875 F.2d 935 (1st Cir. 1989)
  …track or mislead jurors who heard the case in chief. That they were highly relevant cannot be gainsaid; each declaration is directly “contrary to [plaintiffs] position at trial.” United States v. Palow, 777 F. 2d 52, 56 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1052, 106 S.Ct. 1277, 89 L.Ed.2d 585 (1986); cf. Estate of Spinosa v. Int’l Harvester Co., 621 F. 2d 1154, 1157 (1st Cir.1980). Thus, the statements were admissions against interest, and presumptively admissible. See, e.g., Williams v. Union Carbide Cor…