United States v. Saul I. Birnbaum
1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 4168, 337 F.2d 490 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement made by a co-conspirator is not admissible against another conspirator under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule if the statement is merely a narrative of past events and was not made in furtherance of the conspiracy's objectives.
Facts:
- Saul I. Birnbaum, an accountant, provided tax advice to his client, Robert Leonhardt, regarding a complex stock deal known as the 'Wickersham transaction.'
- Leonhardt reported the profits from this transaction as a long-term capital gain on his 1955 tax return, despite receiving the profits in less than six months, creating a significant tax liability issue.
- In 1956, Internal Revenue Agent Harold Simon began an audit of the tax returns for Leonhardt and his company.
- After meeting with Simon, Birnbaum informed Leonhardt that Simon 'could be taken care of' to resolve the tax issue favorably.
- An agreement was reached for Leonhardt's business partner, Alexander Guterma, to pay Simon $10,000 and 5,000 shares of stock as a bribe.
- In April 1957, the cash and stock were transferred to Simon to ensure a favorable outcome of the tax audit.
- In September 1957, Leonhardt gave Birnbaum an additional $10,000 in cash intended for Simon.
- In September 1961, years after the bribe was paid, Simon told Leonhardt in a secretly recorded conversation that Birnbaum had 'declared himself a partner' in the scheme and had 'kept most of the money' Leonhardt had provided.
Procedural Posture:
- Saul I. Birnbaum and IRS Agent Harold Simon were charged in a multi-count indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- Co-defendant Simon pleaded guilty before the trial began.
- Birnbaum was tried before a jury and convicted on one count of bribery and one count of conspiracy.
- During the trial, the court admitted Leonhardt's testimony recounting Simon's 1961 out-of-court statement incriminating Birnbaum.
- Birnbaum, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a co-conspirator's out-of-court statement, which is a 'mere narrative' of a past fact and not made to advance the conspiracy's goals, fall within the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule and thus become admissible against another conspirator?
Opinions:
Majority - Moore, Circuit Judge
No. A co-conspirator's statement is not admissible under the hearsay exception unless it was made both during the pendency of the conspiracy and in furtherance of its objects. Simon’s statement to Leonhardt was a 'merely narrative' declaration of a past fact—that Birnbaum had kept the bribe money. It was not an act in furtherance of the common object of bribing Simon for a favorable tax audit. The court reasoned that the traditional agency rationale for the exception does not apply here, as Birnbaum would not have impliedly authorized Simon to make a statement accusing him of converting the funds, an act detrimental to their shared interest. Because the statement was inadmissible hearsay and highly prejudicial, its admission at trial constituted reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the 'in furtherance' requirement of the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule (now codified in Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E)). The court makes a critical distinction between statements that actively advance a conspiracy's goals and those that are merely historical narratives about the conspiracy. By rejecting the admission of Simon's statement, the court limited the scope of this powerful exception, ensuring that defendants are not convicted based on casual conversations or retrospective accusations between alleged co-conspirators that do not actually serve the conspiracy's purpose. This holding requires trial courts to scrutinize not just the timing of a co-conspirator's statement, but its specific purpose and function within the alleged criminal enterprise.
