Crozier

MEMORANDUM **

First, Appellants challenge the admission at trial of evidence of death threats received by federal officials. Appellants argue that the admission of this evidence violated their right to due process under the Fifth Amendment as well as their rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. We review for plain error because Appellants did not object at trial that the admission of this evidence violated these particular constitutional rights. See United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 583 (9th Cir.2007); United States v. Allen, 425 F.3d 1231, 1235 (9th Cir.2005). The admission of this evidence was not in error. The evidence was not offered for its truth, there was no implication that Appellants made the threats, and to the extent there was such an implication, the district court gave an appropriate limiting instruction.

Second, the statements on the audiotape did not constitute inadmissible hearsay. The district court’s conclusion that the statements were admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) as statements of a coconspirator during and in furtherance of a conspiracy was not clearly erroneous. Richardson was part of the conspiracy and the…