Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 383

摘要

Defense Opposition · Geaney Finding

This 12-page filing, dated June 29, 2024 from Sidhardha Kamaraju of Pryor Cashman LLP, opposes the government's June 28, 2024 letter brief (case-doc-382) requesting a Geaney finding admitting co-conspirator and agent statements for their truth in United States v. Guo, 1:23-cr-00118-1 (AT).

Defense's Principal Arguments

The defense argues the statements proffered by the government are inadmissible:

1. Improper Hybrid Theory

The government's application is a misguided attempt to stitch together two distinct hearsay exceptions — one for co-conspirators (FRE 801(d)(2)(E)) and one for agents (FRE 801(d)(2)(D)) — into a single combined exception. The defense argues this would absolve the government of having to satisfy the requirements of either.

2. No Demonstrated Conspiracy Membership

The government has not adequately demonstrated, by a preponderance, that each particular declarant is a member of any conspiracy. The Geaney prerequisites apply individually to each declarant; bulk inference is impermissible.

3. No Demonstrated Agency

For statements claimed as agent statements, the government has not established that the declarant was an agent of Mr. Guo within the meaning of FRE 801(d)(2)(D).

4. Statements Not in Furtherance

Even where conspiracy or agency might be shown, the statements were not made "in the course of and in furtherance of" the conspiracy or the agency relationship.